Over the years, I've reviewed hundreds of bids, both as someone helping organisations win contracts and through the lens of understanding how public sector evaluators assess what lands on their desks. During that time, I’ve come to understand just how many bids lose because they make the evaluator's job harder than it needs to be.
That might sound blunt, but it's the truth. The organisation behind the bid is often perfectly qualified. The team has the experience. The delivery model is solid. But the response itself? It's unclear, it doesn't fully answer the question, or it buries the good stuff under waffle and jargon.
Understanding what evaluators actually want to see, and then giving it to them consistently, is one of the clearest ways to improve your tender success rate. So let me break it down.
They Want Information That's Easy to Read
This sounds obvious, but it's one of the most common areas where bids fall short.
Evaluators are often reviewing multiple submissions, sometimes under time pressure. They are not searching for your best points; they need those points to be clearly visible and easy to absorb. Dense paragraphs, long-winded sentences, and inconsistent formatting all slow the reader down and reduce the impact of what you're saying.
Short sentences help. Clear headings help. Well-structured responses that mirror the question being asked help. When I work with bid teams, one of the first things I focus on is stripping out anything that creates friction for the reader. If an evaluator has to work hard to understand your answer, you're already at a disadvantage.
Think about the experience of reading your bid from their perspective. Is it a pleasure to read, or a chore?
They Want Compliant Responses
Compliance is non-negotiable, yet it's a frequent reason why bids underperform.
Every ITT sets out what it requires. There are word limits, question structures, supporting documents to include, formatting rules, and specific information the buyer has asked for. Evaluators are often required to mark responses against those criteria, and if something isn't there, or isn't in the right place, marks are lost. It can be as straightforward as that.
In my experience, non-compliance often comes from rushing. Teams receive the tender, start writing, and don't fully interrogate the requirements first. Taking time at the outset to map out every compliance point, and then checking responses against that list before submission, is a simple step that makes a significant difference.
Compliance isn't just about ticking boxes. It signals to the buyer that you take their process seriously, that you follow instructions, and that you're a reliable organisation to work with. It starts building trust before they've even read the substance of your answer.
They Want Only Relevant Information
More is not more in bid writing.
I've reviewed responses where the writer has clearly worked hard: pages of content, detailed background information, extensive company history. But very little of it actually addresses what was asked. Evaluators don't award marks for effort or volume. They award marks for relevance.
Every sentence in a bid response should be earning its place. If it doesn't directly answer the question or support your case for being the right supplier, cut it. Irrelevant information doesn't just fail to score; it dilutes the responses that do score, making it harder for the evaluator to find and credit your best points.
This is a discipline. It requires being ruthless with your own writing, which isn't always easy when you've invested time in producing it. But the bids that score well are almost always the ones where every word is doing a job.
They Want Fully Answered Responses
There's a difference between addressing a question and fully answering it.
Evaluators are working from a marking framework. They know what a high-scoring response looks like because the criteria tell them. If your answer only covers part of what was asked, you will only score part of the available marks, regardless of how well-written the partial answer is.
This means reading each question carefully and identifying every element within it. Some questions contain multiple parts, even if they don't look like it at first glance. Others have sub-criteria in the evaluation guidance that aren't obvious from the question itself. Clarification questions exist for a reason: if you're not sure what's being asked, ask.
A response that fully answers the question, addresses each sub-criterion, and provides the right level of detail will always outperform a partial answer, no matter how polished.
They Want to Feel Confident and Trust You
This is perhaps the most important thing on the list, and it underpins everything else.
Evaluators aren't just assessing whether you can do the job. They are making a decision on behalf of their organisation, and they need to feel confident that you are the right choice. They need to trust that you understand what's required, that you have the capability and capacity to deliver, and that working with you will not create risk for them.
That confidence comes from how you write, not just what you write. It comes from being specific rather than vague. It comes from backing up your claims with evidence: case studies, outcomes, data, testimonials. It comes from demonstrating that you understand the buyer's context and priorities, not just your own offer.
A bid that reads as if it could have been written for any contract, by any organisation, will not inspire confidence. A bid that reflects genuine knowledge of the buyer, their challenges, and what success looks like for them is the one that stands out.
They Want Well-Formatted, Easy-to-Read Responses
Formatting is not cosmetic. It is part of the communication.
A well-formatted bid makes it easier for the evaluator to follow your argument, locate specific information, and award marks where they're due. Clear headings, sensible use of bullet points where appropriate, consistent fonts and spacing: these all contribute to a professional impression and a smoother read.
Conversely, poor formatting creates a negative impression before a word has been evaluated. It can suggest a lack of care or attention to detail, which is exactly the kind of signal you don't want to be sending in a competitive tender process.
When we support clients with bid writing, formatting is always part of the assessment. Not because it scores directly, but because it affects how the scored content lands. A well-presented response is far more likely to be read generously than one that looks as though it was thrown together.
How Our Bid Writing Masterclasses Help You Apply This
Knowing what evaluators want is one thing. Consistently delivering it under time pressure, across different questions and contract types, is quite another. That's what our bid writing training courses are designed to help with.
I deliver our 1-day and 2-day bid writing masterclasses personally, drawing on everything I've learned from reviewing, writing, and winning bids across a huge range of sectors. The sessions are practical rather than theoretical: we work through real examples, focus on the writing techniques that score well, and give delegates the tools to take back and apply immediately.
Within the training, we cover all of the areas explored in this post. We look at how to structure responses so they're easy to evaluate, how to check for compliance before you start writing, how to identify and cut irrelevant content, and how to build the kind of credible, evidence-based case that earns an evaluator's confidence. We also spend time on formatting, persuasive writing, and how to develop win themes that run consistently through the whole bid.
Both courses are CPD-accredited and available online and in-person, with sessions running regularly in Manchester, Birmingham and London. We also offer bespoke in-house bid training for teams who prefer a session tailored to their specific sector and challenges.
The feedback we receive consistently tells us the same thing: attendees leave with not just new skills, but renewed confidence in the whole tendering process. And that confidence shows in the results.
Bringing It All Together
Everything on this list points in the same direction: make the evaluator's job easier, and give them every reason to choose you.
That means being clear, being compliant, being relevant, being complete, and being credible. It means putting the buyer's needs at the centre of every response, rather than leading with what you want to say about yourself.
These aren't complicated principles, but applying them consistently, under time pressure, across multiple questions, in a highly competitive field, is where skill and experience make the difference. It's why bid training matters, and why even experienced teams benefit from stepping back and looking at their approach with fresh eyes.
If you'd like to explore how our training or bid writing services could help your team apply these principles in practice, get in touch today.
