Your CVs and case studies can decide the bid
Supporting evidence is often written last.
That is a mistake.
CVs and case studies can carry significant weight in a tender, and some procurements include minimum experience requirements that make them more than supporting material.
They can be part of the qualification or scoring mechanism.
That means they deserve the same scrutiny as your main quality responses.
A CV is not a job description
One of the most common problems with tender CVs is that they describe responsibilities rather than outcomes.
For example:
Project Manager responsible for managing delivery teams, stakeholders and project reporting.
That tells the evaluator what the person did.
It does not tell them what they achieved.
Compare:
Managed a 14-person delivery team across a €2.4m transformation programme, completing implementation three months ahead of schedule and reducing manual processing by 34%.
Now the evaluator has evidence.
The second version demonstrates scale, responsibility and outcome.
Audit CVs against the tender
Start with the actual requirement.
If the buyer asks for experience managing complex multi-site implementations, check whether the CV demonstrates:
- multi-site delivery
- comparable scale
- relevant sector
- relevant technical experience
- project leadership
- measurable outcomes
Do not simply check whether the person is "experienced".
Check whether the CV proves the specific experience being requested.
Case studies need similarity
A case study can be impressive and still be a weak piece of tender evidence.
Suppose the buyer wants a national healthcare implementation.
A case study about a small private-sector website project may demonstrate competence.
But it may not demonstrate the capability the buyer needs.
Assess similarity across several dimensions:
- sector
- contract value
- project scale
- service scope
- geography
- complexity
- delivery model
- timescale
BidReview's CV and case study review service assesses these factors specifically because relevance matters as much as general quality.
Look for measurable outcomes
A case study should answer:
What changed because you delivered the project?
Weak:
We implemented a new system and improved operational efficiency.
Stronger:
We implemented the system across 12 sites, reducing average processing time by 31% and eliminating 18 hours of manual administration each week.
The second example gives the evaluator evidence.
Check for mandatory thresholds
This is particularly important.
If the tender requires:
At least three comparable projects delivered within the last five years
you need to test your evidence against exactly that requirement.
Not approximately.
Not "something similar".
Exactly.
A beautiful case study is irrelevant if it does not satisfy the threshold.
Match people to the requirement
Do not automatically include your most senior people.
Include the people whose experience best matches the requirement.
If the criterion is technical delivery, the technical specialist may be stronger evidence than the managing director.
If it is programme management, the programme director may carry more weight.
The question is:
Who gives the evaluator the strongest evidence against this criterion?
Audit the final package, not individual documents
CVs and case studies should work together.
If the tender asks about the proposed delivery team, check that:
- CVs demonstrate the required expertise
- roles are clearly defined
- experience is consistent across documents
- project examples support the claims
- case studies reinforce the team's credibility
- dates and responsibilities match
- no unsupported claims appear
Inconsistency can undermine otherwise strong evidence.
Treat supporting evidence as scored content
This is the key mindset change.
Do not think:
"The main bid is the important bit; the CVs and case studies are attachments."
Think:
"Every document the evaluator uses to assess our capability is part of the bid."
The evaluator is looking for evidence.
Give them evidence that is relevant, specific and measurable.
And check it before submission — not after a qualification threshold or scoring panel has decided it is insufficient.
