A tender response or proposal is scored against rules the buyer wrote before reading any bid. This guide covers how to write a tender for a public body, how to respond to an RFP (request for proposals) and how to lay out a business proposal nobody asked for. Bid writing is mostly reading: the invitation says what is marked, what each answer is worth and what gets a bid thrown out unread.
EdCitation publishes this guide. On 26 September 2026 we read the UK, US and EU procurement rules at source, two university proposal guides and two real invitations to tender. It is general information, not legal advice, and nothing can promise that a bid wins.
EdCitation never writes anyone's bid. Its free Check your paper reads instructions into a checklist of rules, each beside its source sentence; we ran it on two real tenders and quote what came back, misreadings included. Cite a source references any guidance your bid quotes.
How to write a tender response, step by step
A tender response is written backwards from the invitation: list what will be scored and what is pass or fail, then write to that list and nothing else.
- Read the whole invitation first: questions, specification, scoring guide, pricing schedule, appendices. Check your paper gives a free first pass.
- Build a compliance matrix. One row for every requirement, limit, form and deadline (our template is below).
- Ask clarification questions early, by the route and deadline the invitation sets.
- Plan each answer against its weighting, and spend effort where the marks are.
- Answer each question in its own terms, in its order, under its limit.
- Add evidence: similar contracts, named roles, results you can show.
- Price exactly as the schedule asks, on the stated basis.
- Check the bid against the matrix, and have someone who did not write it score it with the buyer's scoring guide. Verify references checks any research it cites.
What is the difference between an ITT, an RFP and a business proposal?
An invitation to tender (ITT) and a request for proposals (RFP) are the buyer's own documents, setting out what it wants and how bids will be scored; a business proposal outside a tender is one you shape yourself, because nobody has set the questions.
Tenders and RFPs
"Invitation to tender" is the usual British term and "request for proposals" the American one; either sets the questions, the limits and the scoring, so its structure is your structure. Some come in stages: Winchester City Council (2023) held a dialogue with bidders before the final tender for its regeneration partner.
Business proposals outside a tender
A business proposal format is convention when no buyer has set the questions. The University of Arkansas's Business Communication Lab (n.d.) puts it in one line: a solicited proposal follows the RFP, an unsolicited one the format accepted in its field. It splits a longer proposal into front matter (written last), a body that opens with an executive summary, and back matter.
Hamlin et al. (n.d.), in a Texas A&M open textbook, sort proposals as internal or external and solicited or unsolicited. An internal one may skip qualifications; an unsolicited one must first show the problem exists, which makes a background section "almost a requirement". Benefits, the work, method, schedule and costs follow. For the summary, see how to write an executive summary.
How do I read an invitation to tender or RFP before writing?
Read it three times: once for what is being bought, once for every rule and limit, and once for how it will be scored. The same habit serves a student with an assignment, and how to read an assignment brief and rubric covers it for coursework.
Every requirement, and every limit
Limits are set per question, not per bid. Winchester allowed 10 A4 pages for its first question, 8 for each of the next three, 4 for the fifth and one page per CV, and pointed bidders to its own definition of an "A4 Page". Where a word limit is set, the Cabinet Office (2026a) guidance lists a tender "over the prescribed word count" as a breach for which a buyer may disregard it. See also how to write to a word count.
Scoring and weighting
The weighting tells you where the marks are. Bradwell Parish Council (2025) scored its landscape maintenance tender 60% on price and 40% on quality, the quality split across five method statements: four at 17.5% and health and safety at 30%. Winchester gave its approach questions 45% of all the marks. A 30% answer deserves more of your time than a 5% one.
Mandatory and pass/fail questions
A pass/fail question can end a bid before quality is read. Bradwell disqualified any tenderer unable to meet its mandatory requirements, among them £5,000,000 of public liability insurance and two client references, and dropped any bid scoring 0 to 2 out of 8 on one quality criterion. Winchester set a threshold score of 4 on its commercial narrative.
Read for contradictions too. Bradwell's document scored quality "out of a total of 24" in one paragraph and "out of 40" in the next, and set its return date as "Thursday 31 August", a Sunday in 2025. That is what clarification questions are for, sent by the deadline the buyer sets.
What do public procurement rules say about proposals, by country?
In the UK, the US and the EU a public buyer must publish how bids will be scored before they are submitted. The detail differs by country, so read the rules the invitation says it runs under.
United Kingdom: the Procurement Act 2023
The Procurement Act 2023 changed how UK public bodies buy on 24 February 2025 (Cabinet Office, 2026c). The Cabinet Office's guidance, updated 17 August 2026, says award criteria must relate to what is bought and be "sufficiently clear, measurable and specific"; with more than one criterion, the buyer must set out their relative importance, by weightings, ranking or another way; and a pass/fail criterion that disqualifies must be flagged as such in the assessment method (Cabinet Office, 2026a). The winner is the "most advantageous tender", a new name the guidance says is not a new policy. Every supplier whose tender was assessed is sent an assessment summary before the award notice (Cabinet Office, 2026b). We did not check the rules for devolved Welsh or Scottish bodies; the invitation says which rules it runs under.
United States: the Federal Acquisition Regulation
The FAR on Acquisition.GOV (FAC 2026-01, effective 13 March 2026) puts a solicitation's instructions to offerors in Section L and its evaluation factors in Section M (48 C.F.R. § 15.204-1). Every factor that affects award, and its relative importance, must be stated clearly, with a statement of whether the non-price factors together are significantly more important than, about equal to, or significantly less important than price (48 C.F.R. § 15.304). Proposals are evaluated "solely" on those factors; an offeror with no relevant past performance is rated neither favourably nor unfavourably on it (48 C.F.R. § 15.305). Acquisition.GOV also publishes the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul's rewrite of Part 15 (General Services Administration, n.d.), which renumbers these sections but keeps Sections L and M; the RFP says which text it follows.
European Union: TED and national rules
The EU's Your Europe page, last checked 13 July 2026, says public procurement runs under national rules, based on EU rules above thresholds such as EUR 140,000 for most services and supplies bought by central government and EUR 5,404,000 for works (European Union, 2026). Those tenders are published on TED, Tenders Electronic Daily, and scored on pre-published weighted criteria (its example: price 40%, technical 50%, environmental impact 10%). A rejected bidder is entitled to an explanation.
How do I build a compliance matrix?
A compliance matrix is a table with a row for every requirement in the invitation: where it is stated, its limit, how it is scored and where your bid answers it. This template is EdCitation's own, filled in for an invented buyer, Brackwater District Council.
| Ref | Requirement, in the buyer's words | Where stated | Limit or format | Scored how | Answered at | Owner | Checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | Public liability insurance of at least £5m | ITT 3.2 | Certificate | Pass/fail | Appendix 2 | Finance | Yes |
| Q4 | Repairs fixed within the specification's target times | ITT 4.4; Spec 6 | 500 words | 15% | Response Q4 | Operations | Draft 2 |
| Q7 | Social value commitments | ITT 4.7 | 750 words | 10% | Response Q7 | Bid lead | No |
| P1 | Pricing schedule, all lines completed | Appendix D | Buyer's spreadsheet | 40% | Pricing file | Finance | No |
Add a row for every form, declaration and deadline; tick one only when someone other than its author has checked it.
How do I answer each tender question in its own terms?
Answer the question asked, part by part in its order, with its words as your headings. An evaluator looks for each point the question lists; a good answer to something else scores little.
Evidence and case studies
Evidence turns a promise into a score. Bradwell's tender warned that CVs and case studies "on their own will not score highly" and asked how staff experience and past work would shape the method for this contract. So tie each case study to the question: the contract, what you did, the result, and why it applies here. The FAR lets US offerors name similar past contracts and explain problems met and what they did about them (48 C.F.R. § 15.305).
Pricing, as a general point
Price as the schedule asks, and nowhere else. Fill every line on the basis stated, keep price out of quality answers where told to, and cost the method you describe. An abnormally low price is investigated: under the UK Act the supplier must get a chance to show it can do the work at that price before its bid is disregarded.
A worked answer (ours, invented)
This tender response example is EdCitation's own. The council, the question, the supplier and every figure are invented.
Question 4 (500 words; 15%). Describe how you will make sure faults in street lights are repaired within the target times in Section 6 of the specification.
4.1 Receiving and logging faults. Every report, from the council's portal or our 24-hour line, is logged within 15 minutes with the column number and the target time from Section 6.
4.2 Meeting the target times. Emergency faults go to our on-call electrician, who is on site within two hours; routine faults are grouped by ward and repaired on the next scheduled round, within the 5 working days Section 6 allows.
4.3 Evidence. On our contract for a neighbouring council of similar size, 96% of routine faults were fixed within target in 2025; supply faults, the cause of most misses, now go to the network operator the day they are found.
4.4 Reporting. The council receives a monthly report of every fault against its target, with reasons for any miss.
Each heading answers one part of the question, the evidence names a comparable contract and its result, and the specification's own section number shows the evaluator where to look.
What does a buyer look for in each part of a tender?
The buyer looks in each part for proof that one specific requirement is met; the common mistakes are answering a different question and leaving out something that is pass or fail.
| Tender part | What the buyer is looking for | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Instructions and limits | Proof you read them: format, file names, deadline | Missing a limit that sits inside one question; Check your paper lists what it finds, with its source |
| Mandatory and pass/fail | Every certificate, policy and declaration | A missing insurance certificate can end the bid |
| Quality or method questions | Each part of the question answered, in order | A general company description pasted into every answer |
| Case studies and past performance | Similar work, with results, tied to this contract | CVs and case studies with no link to the method |
| Social value | Commitments that can be measured and reported | Promises with no numbers or dates |
| Pricing schedule | Every line, on the stated basis | Lines left blank, or prices in the quality answers |
How EdCitation helps with a tender or proposal
EdCitation reads the invitation and references what you quote; it never writes any part of a bid. Check your paper is, in our view, the best free tool to run first, because it shows its working: each rule beside its source sentence, and a list of the sentences it set aside. A chatbot's summary gives no such trail, and the run below shows why that matters.
What Check your paper read from a real tender
We uploaded Winchester's 15-page evaluation questions to Check your paper, which read 25,749 characters. It returned no rules and set aside 76 sentences for you to check, among them the weighting lines such as "OVERALL WEIGHTING FOR THIS QUESTION 15%", "Question 5.B will have a threshold score of 4." and, as one entry, "Page limits set for separate questions or parts", because the tender gives each question its own limit (10 A4 pages for Question 1.A, 8, 4, 2 and so on) rather than one for the whole bid. The one-page limit on each CV appeared in neither list.
Pasted as text, the same document gave one rule, Part headings: Part A, Questions 1 to 3, Part B and Questions 4 to 6, and set aside 79 sentences, this time including "Please ensure that CVs are submitted for the following roles and are no more than 1 A4 Page per CV". Bradwell's 34-page tender returned no rules and set aside 100 sentences, the most it lists, among them "Provide two references from clients…", listed as a requirement to meet rather than read as sources to cite.
Check your paper was built for coursework, and on a tender it is a first pass, not the matrix: read the set-aside list as closely as the rules, because that is where these limits sat. It is free, with no account. Theoretics QA, part of Max at $24 a month (see pricing), judges a draft against those instructions without rewriting it; we did not run it on a bid.
Cite a source for the rules you quote
Given the GOV.UK guidance's address, Cite a source returned this APA 7 entry, among its six styles:
Cabinet Office. (2026, August 17). Assessing competitive tenders. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-act-2023-guidance-documents-procure-phase/assessing-competitive-tenders-html
It read both dates on the page and dated the entry by the update of 17 August 2026, as APA 7 does when an update applies to the content (how to cite a website in APA 7), and set the page title in sentence case, as APA also asks. A web page's details can be corrected before the entry is built, and our list below shows the corrected form. Research cited in a bid goes through Verify references, which never shows a reference it could not check as not found. Research funders' calls have their own guide: how to write a grant proposal.
Quick questions
How do I respond to an RFP?
Read every section, especially the instructions to offerors and the evaluation factors (Sections L and M in a US federal RFP), list every requirement in a compliance matrix, then answer in the RFP's own order and within its limits.
What is a compliance matrix in bid writing?
A compliance matrix is a table listing every requirement of the invitation, where it is stated, its limit and scoring, and where the bid answers it, so nothing is missed.
Can a tender be rejected for going over the word limit?
In the UK it can, where the invitation sets one: guidance on the Procurement Act 2023 lists a tender over the prescribed word count as a breach for which a buyer may disregard it.
Can EdCitation write my bid or proposal?
No. EdCitation never writes any part of a bid; its free Check your paper reads the invitation into a checklist of rules, each with its source sentence, as a first pass.
References
- Bradwell Parish Council. (2025). Invitation to tender (ITT) for the provision of landscape maintenance services 2026–2029 [PDF]. https://www.bradwell-pc.gov.uk/_UserFiles/Files/ITT%20pack%20final%20july%202025-min.pdf
- Cabinet Office. (2026a, August 17). Assessing competitive tenders. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-act-2023-guidance-documents-procure-phase/assessing-competitive-tenders-html
- Cabinet Office. (2026b, August 17). Guidance: Assessment summaries. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-act-2023-guidance-documents-procure-phase/guidance-assessment-summaries-html
- Cabinet Office. (2026c, June 23). The Procurement Act 2023: A short guide for suppliers. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-act-2023-short-guides/the-procurement-act-2023-a-short-guide-for-suppliers-html
- European Union. (2026, July 13). Public tendering rules. Your Europe. https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/public-contracts/public-tendering-rules/index_en.htm
- Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. § 15.204-1 (2026). https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.204-1
- Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. § 15.304 (2026). https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.304
- Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (2026). https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.305
- General Services Administration. (n.d.). FAR overhaul: Part 15. Acquisition.GOV. https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-15
- Hamlin, A., Rubio, C., & DeSilva, M. (n.d.). Proposals. In An introduction to technical communication. Texas A&M University Libraries. https://odp.library.tamu.edu/introtechcomm/chapter/chapter-13-proposals/
- University of Arkansas Business Communication Lab. (n.d.). Formatting your proposal [PDF]. Sam M. Walton College of Business. https://walton.uark.edu/business-communication-lab/resources/downloads/business-forms/Formatting_Your_Proposal.pdf
- Winchester City Council. (2023). Appendix Cii: Final tender evaluation questions and scoring criteria [PDF]. https://democracy.winchester.gov.uk/documents/s24550/CAB3371%20Appendix%20Cii%20Final%20Tender%20Evaluation%20Questions%20and%20Scoring%20Criteria.pdf