Writing a technical response that scores against the evaluation criteria
A technical response scores when it answers the criterion in the criterion's own terms, in the place the schedule asked for it, with evidence attached to every claim. It loses marks when it describes the company instead of the work, or covers the subject without answering the question.
The structure that scores is consistent: restate the question, answer it directly, show the evidence, then state what it means for this client's project. Four moves, in that order, for every criterion and every sub-criterion.
Checking that every criterion and sub-criterion has an answer in the right place is mechanical, and Elora Grid returns that map cited to source. Writing the engineering content is your team's work, and should be.
What are you actually being scored on?
The criterion as written, not the topic it belongs to. "Describe your methodology for testing and commissioning the switchroom" is a question about your method on this scope, not an invitation to describe your testing capability in general.
Evaluators work through a scoring sheet with the criterion at the top of each page. Anything in your response that does not answer that criterion is, at best, not scored.
What separates an assertion from an evidenced answer?
A reference someone could check. "We have extensive experience with HV switchrooms" is an assertion. "The commissioning sequence follows the ITP at Schedule 6, executed by a testing engineer holding the registration named in your specification" is an answer with two things an evaluator can verify.
This is the single highest leverage edit in most technical responses, and it usually shortens them. Evidence replaces adjectives, and adjectives are what make a response long without making it score.
How do you handle a criterion you are weak on?
Address it directly and price the mitigation. An evaluator who sees a gap acknowledged with a concrete plan scores it higher than a gap they discover behind confident prose, because the second one also raises a question about everything else you claimed.
What does not work is silence. An unaddressed criterion is scored as absent, and it is the cheapest kind of mark to lose.
Who should write it?
The engineer who will do the work, edited by whoever owns the submission. Responses written entirely by a bid team read fluently and score poorly, because the specifics that earn marks are exactly the details a non-practitioner cannot invent.
The reverse fails too. An engineer writing unedited will answer the question they find interesting rather than the one that carries the weight.
Assertion against evidenced answer
| Criterion asks about | Assertion, scores low | Evidenced answer, scores |
|---|---|---|
| Testing methodology | "We have extensive commissioning experience" | The named ITP, the hold points, who witnesses each, and the standard applied |
| Programme | "We will deliver on time" | A programme reflecting this scope, with the long lead items and their quoted lead times |
| Resourcing | "Our team is highly qualified" | Named roles, the registrations they hold, and their allocation across the phases |
| Safety | "Safety is our highest priority" | The specific controls for the hazards in this scope, and who signs off each |
| Risk | "We manage risk proactively" | The three risks in this project, the mitigation for each, and who carries the residual |
- 01Turn the criteria into your headings. The client's words, the client's order, one heading per criterion and sub-criterion.
- 02Write the direct answer first. Two sentences that would score on their own, before any context or background.
- 03Attach one piece of checkable evidence per claim. A schedule reference, a named standard, a qualified role, a worked example.
- 04Cut every adjective that carries no evidence. Extensive, proven, world class and robust score nothing and cost you the reader's patience.
- 05Score your own draft against the client's scale. Not whether it is good, but what mark it earns against this criterion.
Common questions
How do you write a technical proposal for a tender?
Structure it from the evaluation criteria, using the client's headings and order. For each criterion: restate the question, answer it directly in the first two sentences, attach checkable evidence, then state what it means for this project. Answer every sub-criterion explicitly, even briefly.
How long should a technical response be?
As long as the page or word limit allows, and no longer than the evidence you have. Where no limit is stated, length is set by how many claims you can support: an evidenced answer is usually shorter than the assertion-heavy version it replaces.
Should you reuse answers from previous bids?
Reuse the evidence, rewrite the answer. Methods, qualifications and worked examples carry across; the answer must address this client's criterion and this scope. A reused answer that names the wrong project or the wrong standard costs more than writing it fresh.
Can Elora Grid check a response against the criteria?
Yes. Hand it your draft and the issued returnables, and it returns a map of every criterion and sub-criterion against where your response answers it, flagging the ones answered elsewhere or not at all, each cited to source. The engineering content stays yours to write.