Most bid advice is written from the bidder’s chair. This guide sits in the other one: how the person scoring your tender actually works — the two-pass structure, the weighted scoring arithmetic, MEAT and price–quality ratios — because once you can run the evaluation in your head, you can write directly for it.
The two passes: conformance, then quality
Formal evaluations almost universally start with a conformance screen: were the mandatory conditions met, the required certificates supplied, the format followed, the bid submitted on time? Bids that fail are set aside — before any quality scoring happens. Only the surviving bids proceed to the scored evaluation.
Pass 1 is binary and unforgiving, which is why the compliance matrix — the tool for running that screen on yourself first — earns its own guide. Everything below concerns Pass 2, where marks exist.
Weighted scoring: the arithmetic of marks
The tender pack publishes criteria and weightings — say Technical approach 35%, Experience 25%, Delivery 20%, Price 15%, Social value 5%. Each evaluator marks each criterion on a scale (0–5 and 0–10 are common), usually against published descriptors like “excellent — comprehensive response, fully evidenced” down to “unacceptable — no relevant response”. The mark converts to a share of the weighting; the shares sum to the bid’s score.
A worked example, one criterion, 0–5 scale:
| Criterion | Weight | Your mark | Calculation | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical approach | 35% | 4 / 5 | 4 ÷ 5 × 35 | 28.0 |
| Relevant experience | 25% | 3 / 5 | 3 ÷ 5 × 25 | 15.0 |
Two things fall out of the arithmetic. First, a one-mark improvement on a 35% criterion is worth seven points — the same improvement on the 5% criterion is worth one. Budget your effort like the RFT playbook says: weight = page budget. Second, the marking descriptors are a rubric you can write against — “fully evidenced” is not a vibe, it’s the literal difference between a 3 and a 4.
MEAT and the price–quality ratio
Under MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender — the standard award basis in UK/EU-style procurement, with close equivalents like “best value” in the US), price is one weighted criterion among several, on a published ratio: 70:30 quality-to-price, 60:40, sometimes 30:70 for commodity buys. Price itself is typically scored relative to the lowest compliant bid — lowest gets full price marks, others proportionally less.
How evaluators actually read
Criterion by criterion, not cover to cover. An evaluator marking “Delivery & timeline” navigates to that section, looks for the answer, looks for the evidence, consults the descriptors, records a mark — often for several bids in one sitting. The practical consequences:
- Mirror the buyer’s structure and numbering. Marks go missing in responses where the answer lives somewhere clever.
- Lead every section with the answer — claim, then method, then evidence. Make the first sentence markable.
- Put proof beside claims, not in an appendix the evaluator may never reach. “Fully evidenced” earns the next mark up; see evidence that scores.
- Answer the criterion asked, not the adjacent one you prefer. Evaluators can only score what the criterion lets them score.
Moderation, standstill and feedback
Individual scores are usually moderated — evaluators reconcile marks into a consensus score with written justification, because award decisions must survive challenge. After award, regulated regimes run a standstill period and offer debriefs. Always take the debrief: the criterion-level feedback is the cheapest bid intelligence you will ever receive, and it feeds the next bid’s win-rate work directly.
Writing for the marker, systematically
Everything above is process — which means software can hold it for you. Palmar structures a response around the tender’s own criteria, drafts each section answer-first from your past bids with citations to the source clause, and verifies coverage before submission, so what reaches the evaluator is organised the way they mark. The output of exactly that process is on the annotated sample response, and pricing is public.
Frequently asked questions
What does MEAT mean in tendering?
MEAT stands for Most Economically Advantageous Tender — the standard award basis in UK/EU-style public procurement. Instead of awarding to the lowest price, the buyer scores quality criteria (methodology, experience, social value…) alongside price on a published ratio such as 70:30 or 60:40, and awards to the highest combined score.
How are tender scores calculated?
Typically: each quality criterion is marked on a scale (often 0–5 or 0–10) by one or more evaluators, the mark is converted to a percentage of that criterion's published weighting, and the weighted scores are summed. Price is usually scored relative to the lowest compliant bid — for example, lowest price gets full marks and others are scored proportionally. The exact formula is normally published in the tender pack; read it.
Do evaluators read every page of a tender response?
Assume not. Evaluators typically score criterion by criterion, navigating to the section that answers what they're marking — often under time pressure, often scoring several bids in a sitting. A response organised in the buyer's structure, with answers stated up front and evidence beside claims, is materially easier to award marks to.
Can a cheap bid lose to an expensive one?
Routinely — that's the point of MEAT and weighted scoring. On a 70:30 quality:price ratio, a bid that scores strongly on quality criteria can absorb a meaningful price premium. The reverse is also true: when the ratio leans to price (an RFQ, or 30:70), methodology prose can't save an uncompetitive number.
