Writing a tender: a practical guide to winning bids

Writing a tender begins with systematically deconstructing the request for tenders. On the first reading, form an overall picture: what is being purchased, who is purchasing, how will it be evaluated, what is required of the bidder, when must the tender be submitted, and how does submission work. On the second reading, mark all mandatory requirements by identifying words like 'must be provided', 'is required', and 'requirement'.

Pay special attention to scored quality criteria and their weightings, the price scoring formula, and format requirements such as page limits, file formats, and response structure. RFP appendices are often critical — an important requirement may be buried in Appendix 7. Check the draft contract especially for penalties, liability limitations, and termination conditions.

When encountering ambiguities, make use of the RFP's question period. Formulate questions neutrally and as information-seeking — do not lead or reveal your own strategy. Remember that answers are published to all bidders, so a well-formulated question can clarify requirements in a way that benefits your tender without giving competitors an advantage.

The outcome of the RFP deconstruction is a concise summary: what are the mandatory requirements, what are the scored items, with what weighting, and on what scale. This summary serves as a roadmap for writing the tender and a checklist during the finalization stage.

Before writing, you need to map the raw material: the bidder's strengths relative to the specific requirements of this procurement. Key questions include: what references exist from comparable deliveries, which key personnel will participate and with what experience, what is the differentiating factor from competitors, and what is a realistic target price.

In selecting references, the decisive factor is relevance to the subject of the procurement — not the size or prestige of the reference itself. Choose references that match as closely as possible what is being procured, are recent (typically within 3–5 years), are sufficiently large relative to the procurement, and are verifiable. Always confirm with the contact person that you may reference them.

Documenting key personnel's competencies is another critical raw material. Named individuals and their CVs are concrete evidence of capability — generic 'we have extensive experience' tells the evaluator nothing. If the RFP scores key personnel experience, strategic formatting of CVs is essential.

Identifying the differentiating factor helps focus the writing. In which areas is the bidder strongest relative to competitors? In which areas is it possible to exceed minimum requirements? And in which areas should the focus be solely on meeting requirements, because there is no competitive advantage?

The tender's structure must match the RFP's sections exactly. Use the RFP's numbering and headings directly — do not invent your own structure. A typical tender structure includes the ESPD form, bidder profile, service description with scored sections, key personnel and CVs, references, and the pricing form.

Mark the RFP's weighting on each scored section of the service description, so the writer knows where to invest the most effort. For example: 'Implementation approach [scored, weighting 30%]', 'Project management [scored, weighting 20%]', 'Quality assurance [scored, weighting 10%]'. This makes the writing process systematic and ensures time is not allocated unevenly.

Compliance with format requirements is non-negotiable. If the page limit is three pages, use 2.5–3 pages — under two pages looks incomplete, but exceeding the page limit may result in excess content being disregarded. Use the file formats specified in the RFP: if an Excel attachment is requested, deliver Excel — not a PDF printout of Excel.

The response structure is the tender's backbone. Once completed, every member of the bid team knows exactly what their section contains, how long it may be, and what its weighting is in the total score. This enables efficient division of labor within the bid team.

Writing quality responses is the core of the tender and the work stage that produces the most points. The golden response formula proceeds in order: (1) direct answer to the question — what we will do, (2) concrete description of phases, methods, and tools, (3) named personnel and their roles, (4) timeline and checkpoints, (5) reference to a prior project or experience, (6) added value beyond minimum requirements.

The characteristics of good tender text differ from marketing material. The evaluator is a professional looking for answers to the RFP's questions — not advertising slogans. Write direct, factual sentences and concrete commitments: 'We will report to the client in writing every Friday by 3 PM' is better than 'we report regularly'. Use the RFP's language — if the RFP refers to an 'implementation plan', use the same term.

Identifying easy points makes the work more efficient. A reporting plan, risk management matrix (5–10 identified risks and countermeasures), communication plan (contact persons, meeting schedule, escalation path), and applying the quality management system to this project are areas where modest effort yields significant points. Differentiation points come from innovative approaches, named key personnel, and concrete metrics.

Avoiding traps is just as important as collecting points. Do not promise anything you cannot deliver — overpromising leads to contractual risks. Do not write more than requested — extra information does not earn additional points. Do not assume the evaluator's knowledge — explain everything, including what seems obvious, because the evaluator scores only what is written.

References are a bidder's most concrete evidence of capability. The evaluator reads references from the perspective of whether they demonstrate the ability to deliver this specific procurement — not general competence. The reference description structure should include the client name, contact person with contact details, contract period, contract value in euros, a 2–4 sentence description of the delivery, and 1–2 sentences on relevance to this procurement.

Emphasizing relevance is the most important part of a reference description. Do not merely describe what you did — explicitly state why this experience is relevant to this specific procurement. Use the RFP's terminology: if the RFP refers to a 'comprehensive service', describe how your reference was a comprehensive service.

When the required references are insufficient or do not match perfectly, there are three strategies. A consortium with a partner who has the missing references is the most common solution. A subcontractor with the required expertise is another option. The third strategy is arguing comparable experience — if the reference requirement says 'comparable', justify why a different but relevant project qualifies. This requires careful formulation.

Always confirm with the contact person that you may reference them and that they are willing to provide positive feedback in a reference check. Undisclosed negative feedback can destroy an otherwise strong tender. Inform the reference person about which procurement you are referring to and what questions are likely to be asked.

Pricing is the most strategic part of a tender. Start by analyzing the scoring formula and calculating which price produces optimal total points — not the cheapest price, but the best price-quality combination. With the most common formula (cheapest/own x maximum price points), every additional percentage above the cheapest directly means lost price points.

Sensitivity analysis makes the pricing decision visible. With a 60% price and 40% quality weighting: if your price matches the cheapest, you get full 60 price points. If you are 5% more expensive, you get 57.1 points and need 2.9 additional quality points (7.3% of quality points). If you are 10% more expensive, you need 5.5 additional quality points (13.6%). If you are 20% more expensive, you need 10 additional quality points (25%) — practically impossible.

Warning about underpricing is an important part of pricing analysis. Under Section 96 of the Procurement Act, the contracting authority must request an explanation if a tender appears abnormally low. Acceptable reasons include a particularly efficient production method or exceptionally favorable procurement conditions, but strategic underpricing without demonstrating profitability can lead to rejection.

In long-term contracts, index clauses and price adjustment provisions are critical. If the RFP does not allow price adjustments, inflation risk must be priced in. Tender prices are generally given excluding VAT. Itemized pricing — unit prices, options separately, currency — is typical and facilitates the contracting authority's comparison.

Finalization is a three-stage process: content review, format review, and strategic review. In the content review, verify that every mandatory requirement in the RFP has been addressed, scored sections have been answered comprehensively, references match the subject of the procurement, the pricing form is filled in correctly, and the ESPD is completed and signed. The tender must not contain any non-compliant conditions or reservations.

In the format review, check page limits, file formats (PDF, XLSX, DOCX), signatures from authorized signatories, attachment naming, and the language of the tender. In the strategic review, assess whether the tender stands out from competitors, whether the responses are concrete rather than generic, whether the pricing is competitive yet profitable, and whether the evaluator can find answers quickly.

Electronic submission requires careful preparation. The most common systems are Cloudia Kilpailutus, Hanki-palvelu, Tarjouspalvelu.fi, and Mercell. Register early — create your user account as soon as you notice the procurement notice. If the system is unfamiliar, try it out in advance. Submit the tender at least one hour before the deadline and save the confirmation of successful submission.

After submission, the contracting authority issues a written and reasoned procurement decision stating the selected bidder, scores by evaluation criteria, and any grounds for rejection. In above-EU-threshold procurements, the contract may not be concluded before the 14-day standstill period. The bidder has the right to see the scoring and request clarifications.

Late submission is the most common and most fatal mistake. The electronic submission system closes to the second, and 'the internet went down' is not an acceptable justification. The second most common mistake is inadequate reading of the RFP — an important requirement may be hidden in an appendix, and assumptions without reading lead to a non-compliant tender.

A non-compliant tender — for example, adding your own conditions or offering alternative solutions without permission — is grounds for direct rejection. Vague quality responses such as 'we will carry out the work professionally' or 'we have extensive experience' do not earn quality points. A generic response copied from one competition to another does not resonate with the evaluator.

Underpricing 'to get a foot in the door' is a risky strategy: Section 96 of the Procurement Act requires an explanation for an abnormally low tender, and demonstrating profitability at an unbelievable price may lead to rejection. Failing to inform reference contacts is surprisingly common — negative feedback in a reference check can overturn an otherwise strong tender.

Forgetting or carelessly completing the ESPD, broken formulas in the pricing attachment, and giving up too early round out the list of ten most common mistakes. The first lost competition teaches the most — every tender is a learning experience, and systematically collecting feedback from procurement decisions improves future tenders.