How evaluators read
An evaluator assessing proposals or tender responses is usually reading many documents against the same criteria, often under time pressure. They tend to move through the same stages: scan for relevance, check compliance, compare the evidence, score each criterion and then decide. A response that makes each stage easy is assessed on its merits. One that makes the evaluator search is at risk of being scored on what they could find.
Structure first
The most effective structure is usually the one the buyer has set. Use the evaluation criteria as headings, in their order, so each answer is where the evaluator expects it. Put a short summary of the offer on the first page, and a compliance table near the front that confirms each mandatory requirement and points to the evidence.
It is common for a capable business to answer the criteria out of order, because its response was adapted from an earlier one. The content may be excellent, but an evaluator who cannot find it quickly may not credit it fully.
| Question | What the evaluator experiences | The fix |
|---|---|---|
| The criteria are answered out of order | Searching for each answer | Use the criteria as headings, in order |
| Compliance is spread through the document | Unsure whether a requirement is met | A compliance table near the front |
| Projects are listed without detail | No way to judge relevance | Scope, value, client type and result for each |
| Each response looks different | An impression of a smaller business | One consistent template and design |
Evidence that can be compared
Evaluators compare responses, so evidence needs to be comparable. For each relevant project, give the scope, the value, the type of client, the timeframe and the result. Name the people who will do the work and their relevant experience. A library of past projects written in the same format makes this easy to assemble under deadline.
Value is more than price
Government buyers in Australia assess value for money. The Department of Finance’s guidance on the Commonwealth Procurement Rules states that value for money is the core rule, and that it requires buyers to consider both financial and non-financial costs and benefits. A response that makes its non-price strengths clear, such as experience, capacity, quality systems and lower risk, gives the evaluator something to weigh against price.
Where design helps
Design in a proposal or tender is about clarity. Consistent headings, readable tables, clear diagrams of the approach and a layout that matches the rest of the brand make the evidence easy to find and signal an organised business. A consistent template also saves time on every response. Zelexis builds proposal and tender templates around how evaluators read, with a project library the team can draw on for each response. The same library supports the capability statement, which Business Queensland describes as a resume for the business.
A useful next step
Something to try this week.
Take your last unsuccessful tender or proposal and the evaluation criteria it answered. For each criterion, time how long it takes to find your answer. Anything that takes more than thirty seconds to find is likely to have been scored lower than it deserved.