When a tender score comes back lower than expected, it is easy to blame price, competition or a difficult evaluator. Those things do matter, but in many cases, marks are lost because of bid writing errors. These are problems with the written response that make it harder for the evaluator to award you marks.
If your capability is implied, hidden, or not clearly evidenced, you risk missing out on valuable marks. The job of a bid response is to make the score easy to justify: clear compliance, a complete answer, enough detail, and proof that the method can be delivered.
Why Bid Writing Is a Scoring Exercise
One of the biggest shifts I try to make in our training sessions is helping people see bid writing as a scoring exercise.
A tender response has to do several things at once. It must answer the question, meet every instruction, reflect the specification, follow the buyer’s scoring model and give the evaluator enough confidence to award the marks available.
Public procurement guidance is clear that tenders are assessed against the award criteria and assessment methodology. That means a well-written answer is not always a high-scoring answer. The best responses are written with the scoring criteria open from the start, not checked against them at the end.
That is why the team at Thornton & Lowe often advises teams to treat the scoring model as a planning tool. Our guide to scoring methodology explains how to use it to focus effort where marks are most likely to be won or lost.
Bid Writing Error 1: Non-Compliance
Non-compliance is the most frustrating way to lose marks because it is usually avoidable.
It can be obvious, such as missing a mandatory document, exceeding a word count, ignoring a portal instruction or failing to complete a declaration. It can also be more subtle. For example, a question might ask for a method statement, mobilisation plan and named roles, but the response only covers the method.
Even if the content is strong, the evaluator may have limited scope to reward it if the answer does not follow the instructions.
Before writing, check:
- submission format
- page, word or character limits
- mandatory attachments
- pass/fail requirements
- question weighting
- portal deadlines
- file naming conventions
- whether appendices will be evaluated
Compliance should not sit with one person at the end of the process. Build it into the bid plan, the answer structure and the review stage.
Bid Writing Error 2: Not Fully Answering the Question
Many responses answer part of the question very well, then miss the rest. Others answer the question they expected to see, rather than the one actually asked. The result is a response that feels relevant internally but leaves gaps for the evaluator.
A strong approach is to break the question down before writing. If the buyer asks how you will manage implementation, risks, communication and reporting, those are four separate scoring opportunities. Treat them that way.
The Government Commercial Agency’s supplier guidance advises bidders to write and structure a bid by meeting the requirements, using relevant evidence, avoiding generic claims and focusing on buyer-specific benefits. That is a useful test for every response.
Ask yourself: Have we answered every part of the question, or only the part we are most comfortable with?
If the response does not mirror the question, the evaluator has to search for the answer. That creates risk.
Bid Writing Error 3: Lack of Detail
A vague answer can sound professional but still score poorly. Phrases such as “we will ensure quality”, “we have robust processes” or “our experienced team will manage delivery” are hard to score highly unless they are followed by specifics.
Detail gives the evaluator confidence. It explains how the service will work, who is responsible, when actions happen, what controls are used and how success is measured.
For example, this is weak:
“We will hold regular contract meetings to monitor performance.”
This is stronger:
“Our Contract Manager will hold monthly performance meetings with the client lead. Its standing agenda will cover KPIs, open risks, complaints, improvement actions and upcoming service changes. Actions will be logged during the meeting, assigned to a named owner and reviewed at the next meeting.”
The second version gives the evaluator something concrete to assess and to mark.
Bid Writing Error 4: Lack of Evidence
Evidence is what turns a claim into a credible bid response. Without evidence, the buyer is being asked to take your word for it. That is rarely enough, especially in competitive tenders where several bidders may be making similar claims.
Good evidence can include:
- contract examples
- performance data
- client feedback
- accreditations
- case studies
- audit results
- mobilisation outcomes
- staff qualifications
- lessons learned from similar work
The key is relevance. A case study from ten years ago, in a different sector, may not support the point as well as a smaller but more directly comparable example.
When using evidence, connect it back to the question. Do not just drop in a statistic and move on. Explain why it matters and how it reduces risk for the buyer.
For example:
“On a comparable contract, we achieved 98% KPI compliance over 12 months. We will apply the same weekly reporting process here, giving the client early visibility of service issues and corrective actions.”
That tells the evaluator what happened, why it is relevant and how it will apply to their contract.
Bid Writing Error 5: Not Looking at the Scoring Criteria
The scoring criteria often tell you exactly what the buyer values. Ignoring them is like sitting an exam without reading the mark scheme.
Some criteria focus on methodology. Others prioritise innovation, risk management, added value, social value, implementation, reporting or contract management. A response can be technically accurate but still miss marks if it does not target the highest-scoring descriptors.
GCA guidance on supplier assessment explains that tenders are awarded based on the defined award criteria set out in the tender documentation. It also advises suppliers to read the question, award criteria, sub-criteria, assessment methodology and marking scheme before responding.
That is good practical advice. The scoring criteria should influence:
- your answer plan
- section headings
- level of detail
- evidence selection
- examples used
- review questions
- final edits
At Thornton & Lowe, we often use criteria such as these as a checklist during bid reviews. It helps identify whether the answer is merely accurate or genuinely set up to score.
Bid Writing Error 6: Using Complicated Language
Complex language does not make a bid sound more impressive. It usually makes it harder to score.
Evaluators are often reading several submissions against the same criteria. They need to understand your answer quickly and confidently. Long sentences, dense paragraphs, unexplained acronyms and internal terminology all create friction.
The GOV.UK guidance on plain English is useful here because it makes a point that applies directly to bidding: specialist audiences still benefit from clear writing.
Try to replace writing like this:
“Our integrated operational governance framework facilitates continuous performance optimisation across multi-stakeholder delivery environments.”
With something more like this:
“Our Contract Manager will review performance each month with the client, agree improvement actions and track progress through a shared action log.”
The second version is easier to score because the evaluator can see who does what, when it happens and how it is controlled.
Bid Writing Error 7: Providing Irrelevant Information
Irrelevant content wastes word count and weakens the response.
This often happens when teams paste in previous bid content, company background or technical detail that does not answer the question. The information may be true. It may even be impressive. But if it does not help the evaluator award marks, it becomes noise.
A useful test is to ask whether each paragraph does at least one of the following:
- answers the question
- proves a claim
- addresses a scoring criterion
- reduces buyer risk
- shows relevant experience
- explains a clear benefit
If it does none of these things, remove it or move it somewhere more appropriate.
Buyers are not scoring everything your organisation can do. They are scoring the response to the question asked.
How to Catch These Errors Before Submission
The best bid teams build review points into the process rather than letting everything hinge on one final proofread. A practical review structure might include four stages.
- Compliance review: Have we followed every instruction and included every mandatory item?
- Answer review: Have we answered every part of the question in the order the buyer expects?
- Scoring review: Does the response address the criteria and give enough evidence for higher marks?
- Readability review: Is the answer clear, specific and easy to evaluate?
Adopting this method can actually save time because it prevents late rewrites and reduces uncertainty.
For teams that already draft their own tenders, an external review can be especially useful. A fresh reader is more likely to spot missing detail, unsupported claims and content that makes sense internally but not to an evaluator.
From Repeated Errors to Stronger Bids
If the same issues appear across several tenders, the answer is not just to “try harder” next time. The process needs improving.
Common fixes include better answer planning, clearer bid/no-bid decisions, reusable evidence libraries, stronger review checklists and training for everyone who contributes to the bid.
Even where the written response avoids the errors above, a bid can still fall short because of weaknesses earlier in the process. Poor opportunity qualification, rushed pre-bid work, a weak pipeline or a lack of bid readiness can leave the writing team trying to fix strategic problems after the tender has already landed.
That is why it helps to look beyond the final document. Stronger results often start with better bid/no-bid decisions, more structured pre-bid steps and an honest view of whether you are truly bid ready.
That is where bid writing training can make a real difference. In our sessions, we use practical examples to show how evaluators read responses, where marks are lost and how to build clearer, more evidence-led answers. We also cover the wider bid process, including qualification, planning, pipeline management and readiness, so teams can improve the way they bid before the writing starts.
For organisations that need more hands-on support, Thornton & Lowe also provides bid writing services, covering the writing itself as well as reviews, bid management and wider tender support.
Build Better Bids
Most bid writing errors are not caused by a lack of knowledge or capability. They happen because strong operational experience has not been translated into a clear, compliant and evidence-based response.
Before your next submission, take the time to check whether every answer is complete, specific, relevant and aligned to the scoring criteria. If the evaluator can see the answer, see the evidence and see the benefit, you give them a much easier reason to award the marks.
If you want to improve how your team plans, writes and reviews tenders, contact Thornton & Lowe to discuss our bid writing training, bid reviews and practical tender support.
