7 Mistakes That Kill Your Tender Response (And How to Avoid Them)

Most tender responses don't fail because the company wasn't good enough. They fail because the response was.

After seeing hundreds of tender submissions - good and bad - the same mistakes keep showing up. They're all fixable. But only if you know what to look for.

This guide covers the seven most common mistakes, why they hurt your scores, and how to avoid them.

Mistake 1: Not Actually Answering the Question

Sounds obvious. It isn't.

Evaluators score your response against specific criteria. Each question has a defined scope. If the question asks how you'll manage project risks, they want to know about risk management. Not your company history. Not your general capabilities. Not a list of your accreditations.

Risk management. That's it.

The problem is that tender questions are often vague or open-ended. "Describe your approach to quality management" could mean a lot of things. So people hedge. They write around the question, hoping to cover all bases.

This backfires. Evaluators have a marking scheme. They're looking for specific points. If your answer is too general, you won't hit those points - and you won't get the marks.

How to fix it:

Read the question three times before you start writing. Identify exactly what's being asked. Look at the evaluation criteria - they often give clues about what the buyer cares about.

Then answer the question directly. First sentence: "Our approach to quality management involves..." Don't bury your answer in paragraph three.

If you're not sure what they're asking, use the clarification process. Most tenders allow questions. Ask them.

Mistake 2: Making Claims Without Evidence

"We have extensive experience in this sector."

That means nothing. Anyone can write that. Your competitors definitely will.

Evaluators are trained to spot unsupported claims. A statement without evidence is just marketing fluff. It doesn't score.

What scores: "We've delivered 47 similar projects over the past 3 years, including [specific project] for [named client], which achieved [measurable outcome]."

Specific beats vague. Every time.

How to fix it:

For every claim you make, ask yourself: "Can I prove this?" If yes, include the proof. If no, either find evidence or remove the claim.

Evidence includes:

• Case studies with measurable outcomes
• Client testimonials (with permission)
• Statistics from your own delivery data
• Certifications and accreditations
• Awards and recognition
• Named team members with relevant qualifications

The more specific and verifiable your evidence, the more credible your response.

This is where a knowledge base pays off

One of the biggest time drains in tender writing is hunting for evidence. You know you've got a relevant case study somewhere. You know you wrote something similar before. But where?

Bidwell's knowledge base stores all your credentials, case studies, past responses, and company information in one searchable place. When you're writing a response, you can pull relevant evidence instantly - instead of digging through folders and emails.

Mistake 3: Copy-Pasting Old Responses

Reusing content from previous bids saves time. Everyone does it. The problem is when you reuse without tailoring.

Evaluators see hundreds of submissions. They know when someone's just changed the client name and hit send. Generic responses feel generic. They don't address the specific requirements. They miss the nuances of what this particular buyer cares about.

Even worse: leaving in details from a previous bid. Wrong client name. Wrong project references. Wrong locations. It happens more than you'd think, and it's an instant credibility killer.

How to fix it:

Use your previous responses as a starting point, not a finish line. Ask yourself:

• Does this address what THIS buyer specifically asked for?
• Have I referenced THEIR priorities, THEIR challenges, THEIR evaluation criteria?
• Are all the details correct for THIS tender?
• Does the tone match what THIS buyer would expect?

Read through everything before submission. Search for the names of previous clients to make sure you haven't left any in by mistake.

How AI can help (without making things worse)

AI is great at generating first drafts. But generic AI tools don't know your company. They'll write plausible-sounding responses that don't reflect what you actually do.

Bidwell works differently. It learns from your knowledge base - your past responses, your case studies, your credentials. When it generates a response, it's drawing on your actual experience. You still need to review and tailor the output, but you're starting from something relevant, not something generic.

Mistake 4: Ignoring the Evaluation Criteria

The tender documents tell you exactly how you'll be scored. Technical capability might be worth 40%. Price might be 30%. Social value might be 30%.

Yet people regularly submit responses that are perfectly balanced - equal effort on every section. That's wrong.

If technical capability is weighted highest, that's where you put your best effort. That's where you include your strongest evidence, your most relevant case studies, your most qualified team members.

A brilliant technical response with average pricing will often beat an average technical response with brilliant pricing. The weighting tells you this. But people ignore it.

How to fix it:

Before you write a single word, map out the evaluation criteria:

1. What sections are there?
2. What's each section worth?
3. What sub-criteria exist within each section?
4. What marks are available at each level (pass/good/excellent)?

Then allocate your effort accordingly. If technical is worth 50% and social value is worth 10%, don't spend equal time on both.

Mistake 5: Missing Mandatory Requirements

Some requirements aren't negotiable. Specific accreditations. Insurance levels. Certifications. Turnover thresholds. If you don't have them, you're out - regardless of how good the rest of your response is.

This isn't evaluator discretion. It's compliance. A non-compliant bid doesn't get scored.

The frustrating part: people often spend days writing a response before realising they don't meet a mandatory requirement. All that effort, wasted.

How to fix it:

Read the specification first. Before you decide to bid, before you start planning your response, check:

• What accreditations are required?
• What insurance levels?
• What certifications?
• What minimum experience/turnover/headcount?
• What format requirements? (page limits, font sizes, file types)

If you don't meet the mandatory requirements, stop. Either you can get what you need in time (sometimes possible for certifications), or you can't bid. Don't waste time on a response that'll be excluded on compliance grounds.

Mistake 6: Submitting at the Last Minute

Tender portals crash. Internet connections drop. Documents fail to upload. File sizes exceed limits. PDF formatting breaks.

If you're submitting five minutes before the deadline and something goes wrong, you're done. No extensions. No exceptions. No "but my internet was slow." The deadline is the deadline.

Buyers are strict about this because they have to be. If they accept late submissions from one supplier, they open themselves to legal challenge from everyone else.

How to fix it:

Build in buffer time. Lots of it.

• Finish your response at least a day before the deadline
• Upload a draft version early to test the portal
• Check file sizes and formats match requirements
• Have a backup plan if your main internet fails
• Know who to contact if the portal has technical issues

Submitting early also gives you time to fix problems. If you upload and realise something's wrong, you can usually resubmit (up until the deadline). You can't do that if you've left no margin.

Mistake 7: Forgetting the Reader

The person scoring your tender probably has 20 submissions to get through. Maybe more. They're tired. They're looking for reasons to move through the pile quickly.

If your response is hard to read, they won't work to understand it. If they can't find your answer, they'll assume you didn't give one. If you waffle, they'll stop reading.

Evaluators aren't your enemy. But they're not your friend either. They're processing a high volume of documents under time pressure. Make their job easy.

How to fix it:

Structure your response clearly:

• Use the same headings as the tender questions
• Start each answer with a direct response to what was asked
• Break up long paragraphs
• Use bullet points for lists (but not for everything - it becomes hard to read)
• Bold key points if the format allows
• Keep sentences short

Before you submit, get someone who wasn't involved in writing to read it. Ask them: "Can you find the answer to each question easily? Is anything confusing?"

Fresh eyes catch what you miss.

The Compound Effect of Mistakes

Any one of these mistakes can cost you marks. Combined, they're fatal.

A response that doesn't answer the question, lacks evidence, feels generic, ignores the evaluation weighting, and is hard to read? That's not getting shortlisted.

The good news: these are all fixable. They're process problems, not capability problems. You don't need to be a better company. You need to write better responses.

Building a system that prevents mistakes

Most mistakes happen because of time pressure. You're rushing to meet a deadline, so you skip the review. You can't find your evidence, so you write vague claims. You don't have time to tailor, so you copy-paste.

The fix isn't "try harder." It's building a system that makes good responses easier:

• A knowledge base that stores your evidence where you can find it
• Templates that ensure consistent structure
• Checklists that catch compliance issues early
• AI assistance that speeds up first drafts so you have time to refine

That's what Bidwell is built for. Not to replace your expertise, but to remove the friction that leads to mistakes.