A good tender review isn’t a final read-through. It’s a deliberate hunt for the things that lose contracts — disqualifiers first, then leaked marks, then presentation. This checklist gives you the what: the specific items to verify before you hit submit. For the how — the structured process of scoring your own bid the way an evaluator will — pair it with our bid review methodology.
Work through it in order. The earlier sections are the ones that end bids outright.
1. Compliance and admin — the disqualifiers
Check these first. A failure here makes everything else irrelevant.
- ☐ Every mandatory document is present and in the required format
- ☐ Page limits, word counts, font sizes and margins are within the stated limits on every answer
- ☐ All required forms are completed, signed and dated by an authorised signatory
- ☐ Any statutory declarations, certifications or self-declaration forms (e.g. ESPD) are completed correctly
- ☐ Turnover, insurance and other minimum eligibility requirements are met and evidenced
- ☐ Pricing is complete — no blank cells, no zero-value lines that should be priced
- ☐ Pricing in the response reconciles with the pricing schedule
- ☐ Submission is in the correct portal, in the correct file format, by the stated deadline (in the stated time zone)
2. Criteria coverage
- ☐ Every award criterion and sub-criterion has a corresponding answer
- ☐ Each answer visibly addresses the criterion it’s marked against (not the topic in general)
- ☐ The answer mirrors the language of the criterion so coverage is obvious to a scanning evaluator
- ☐ Any minimum scoring thresholds or pass/fail gates are identified, and those answers are strong enough to clear them
3. Evidence and proof
This is where most marks leak. (See why bids lose marks.)
- ☐ Every significant claim is backed by a specific, verifiable proof point
- ☐ High-weighted answers carry more than one named example, figure or reference
- ☐ Case studies are relevant, comparable in scale, and recent
- ☐ Numbers and outcomes are concrete (“38% in nine months”), not vague (“significant improvement”)
- ☐ References named in the response actually exist and are cited correctly (no phantom references)
4. Scoring and bands
- ☐ You’ve scored each answer against the band descriptors, honestly, in the evaluator’s words
- ☐ For every answer, you can write the justification an evaluator would for that mark
- ☐ Answers below a 4 (on a 0–5 scale) on high-weighted criteria have been identified for improvement
- ☐ Effort is concentrated where it moves the total score most — high weighting, low current band
5. Risk and language
- ☐ Hedging removed — no “we would aim to,” “where possible,” “subject to,” “we hope to”
- ☐ No ambiguity an evaluator could read as delivery risk
- ☐ Commitments are definite: what you’ll do, how, and by when
- ☐ Tone is consistent — no jolts from formal methodology into chatty marketing copy
- ☐ No empty buzzwords standing in for evidence (“world-class,” “industry-leading,” “best practice”)
6. Readability and presentation
- ☐ Each answer leads with the answer, not three paragraphs of context
- ☐ Headings are active and benefit-led, not single-word labels
- ☐ Every graphic has a caption stating what it proves and why it matters
- ☐ Sentences and paragraphs are short enough to scan under time pressure
- ☐ Formatting is consistent and the template is intact (no leftover placeholder text or another bidder’s name)
7. Final mechanics
- ☐ Version control confirmed — you’re submitting the final, signed-off version
- ☐ All cross-references and annexes are correct and present
- ☐ File names are clear and match any naming convention required
- ☐ A dry-run upload completed with time to spare before the deadline
How to use this checklist well
Don’t run it alone at 9pm the night before. Run it early enough to act on what it finds — ideally a first pass once the content exists, a second after fixes. And be honest: a checklist only works if you mark items as failed when they are, rather than ticking them to feel finished.
There’s one thing this checklist — or any checklist you run on your own bid — can’t fully give you: detachment. The team that wrote an answer is the worst-placed to notice the claim it treats as obvious or the requirement it read past. That’s the case for an independent proposal review, and for turning the review into a proper proposal diagnostic with predicted scores and ranked fixes.
Run the whole checklist automatically. BidReview checks your live bid against compliance, criteria, evidence and scoring in minutes — and shows you exactly what’s failing. Start with the free scorecard →
