Anyone who has worked in public sector procurement long enough will know this uncomfortable truth:
Tender evaluation is not always as objective as we would like to believe.
Recently, I experienced something that perfectly highlights the challenge many providers face when bidding for frameworks and contracts.
Two different supported living providers submitted responses to a framework opportunity. Both answered a Health & Safety method statement question. One response passed comfortably. The other failed.
The interesting part?
The answers were verbatim identical.
Not “similar”.
Not “based on the same template”.
Literally the same wording.
Yet one provider progressed, while the other was effectively excluded from the opportunity.
Now, before anyone jumps to conclusions, this is not necessarily about wrongdoing or poor practice by commissioners. Procurement teams are often under enormous pressure, evaluating hundreds of responses against tight deadlines and complex scoring matrices. Different evaluators may interpret quality differently, focus on different elements of a response, or apply scoring criteria with varying levels of strictness.
But it does raise an important point that many SMEs, care providers, and bid teams quietly discuss behind closed doors:
Tender marking can be highly subjective.
The “Human Factor” in Procurement
Most quality questions are scored using descriptors such as:
- Excellent
- Good
- Acceptable
- Limited
- Poor
The issue is that these terms are inherently open to interpretation.
What one evaluator considers a “comprehensive response”, another may view as “generic”.
What one commissioner sees as “innovation”, another may consider “standard practice”.
Even with moderation meetings and scoring guidance, procurement evaluation remains a human process. Humans bring experience, interpretation, unconscious bias, and personal emphasis into decision-making.
That does not mean the process lacks integrity — but it does mean providers should stop assuming that a technically correct answer automatically guarantees a passing score.
Why This Matters for Providers
For smaller providers especially, tender failure can feel deeply personal.
I regularly hear comments such as:
“We answered everything.”
“We have the policies.”
“We do this in practice every day.”
“How did we fail that question?”
The reality is that compliance alone is rarely enough anymore.
Commissioners increasingly expect responses that:
- Directly mirror the specification wording
- Demonstrate implementation, not just policy
- Include measurable outcomes and evidence
- Feel personalised to the contract
- Clearly articulate how services will operate locally
Two providers can submit identical compliant answers, yet contextual factors may still influence scoring:
- Existing contract experience
- Perceived credibility
- Strength of mobilisation proposals
- Local knowledge
- Confidence in delivery
- The overall narrative created across the submission
In other words, procurement is often as much about confidence and reassurance as it is about technical compliance.
The Danger of “Template Tendering”
This is also why relying purely on generic templates is becoming increasingly risky.
Many providers understandably build libraries of strong responses — and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is essential for efficiency. But commissioners can quickly identify when a response feels detached from the actual service model or local authority priorities.
A technically correct answer may still fail to “land” with evaluators if it lacks:
- Local relevance
- Service-specific detail
- Real-life operational examples
- Evidence of understanding the client group
Clear delivery methodology
Increasingly, successful tendering is about tailoring narrative, not simply recycling content.
So What Can Providers Do?
Unfortunately, there is no perfect formula that guarantees success every time. If there were, every bid consultant in the country would be retired on a yacht somewhere.
However, providers can significantly improve consistency by:
- Writing directly against evaluation criteria
- Using commissioner language from the specification
- Demonstrating implementation, not aspiration
- Including practical examples and outcomes
- Making responses feel operationally real
- Avoiding overly corporate or policy-heavy wording
- Reviewing submissions from an evaluator’s perspective
Most importantly:
Providers should not assume that failing a tender automatically means they are a poor provider.
Sometimes excellent providers lose because procurement scoring is, by nature, partly subjective.
Final Thoughts
Public procurement absolutely needs structure, transparency, and fairness — and most commissioners genuinely strive to achieve this. But we should also be honest enough to acknowledge that tender evaluation will never be entirely scientific.
The same answer can produce two different outcomes depending on who reads it, how they interpret it, and what they value most within the scoring framework.
That is the reality of modern tendering.
And perhaps understanding that reality is one of the most important lessons for providers entering the procurement world.