How to Write a Winning Tender Proposal
In the public procurement sector, Envelope 2 (or the envelope for criteria dependent on a value judgment) is often where the game is decided. While the economic offer (Envelope 3) tends to be more numerical content, the technical memorandum is the space where you demonstrate that you understand the problem better than anyone else.
For a bid manager, facing a blank page with a 48-hour deadline is a challenge. However, writing a brilliant technical proposal does not require "literary inspiration," but method, structure, and avoiding errors that are grounds for direct exclusion.
Before getting into tactics, let's define the basic concepts to ensure we speak the same language:
Quick Glossary for Bidders
- PCAP (Specific Administrative Clauses): Defines what is valued, how it is scored, and the legal conditions.
- PPT (Technical Prescriptions): The "what". Defines the technical characteristics of the service or product.
- Envelope 2 (Value Judgment): The subjective technical memorandum. Here you explain how you will do it. It must never include prices.
- Envelope 3 (Criteria Evaluated by Formula): The objective offer (price, deadlines, warranties, quantifiable improvements). It is evaluated through automatic mathematical formulas.
7 Frequent Mistakes in Envelope 2 That Cause Exclusion
Before trying to gain points, make sure you don't lose them (or get expelled). These are the most common errors we see in technical memorandums:
- Including data evaluable by formula: Never mention prices, delivery times, or quantifiable data of your objective offer in the subjective technical memorandum.
- Real example: A company detailed "warranty extension to 5 years" within the descriptive memorandum, when that data was subject to automatic scoring in Envelope 3. It was immediately excluded for "contaminating" the technical valuation and violating the secrecy of the offer ahead of time.
- The dangerous "Copy-Paste": 23% of rejected proposals contain references to other bodies ("for the Madrid City Council" when you bid in Barcelona) or repealed regulations.
- Not following the order of the criteria: If the PCAP asks for A, B, and C, do not deliver C, A, and B. You make the evaluator's work difficult.
- Excess of commercial "literature": The administration technician does not want marketing slogans; they want data and methodology.
- Lack of visualization: Delivering walls of text without diagrams, timelines, or tables.
- Not responding to the PPT: Ignoring mandatory technical requirements to focus only on improvements.
- Incorrect format: Exceeding the page limit or changing the font required in the specifications.
Structure of a Winning Technical Memorandum
Forget generic templates. A winning structure is built ad hoc for the file, but follows a proven logic that facilitates reading for the evaluator:
- Executive Summary (The "Elevator Pitch"): The first 2 pages are critical. Summarize your understanding of the need and your key solutions.
- Index Aligned with Criteria (Checklist): Your index must be a mirror of the award criteria in the PCAP. If the specifications award 10 points to "Sustainability," create a chapter called "Sustainability"19.
- Methodology and Work Plan: Here you demonstrate the "how." Use Gantt charts and organization charts. A well-placed graph is worth a thousand words of dense text.
The "Mirroring" Technique: Writing Examples (Bad vs. Good)
A fundamental technique is mirroring: use the same terminology, verbs, and keywords that appear in the specifications. Let's see the difference between generic writing and writing optimized to score:
| Approach | Proposal Text | Why it Works (or Not) |
|---|---|---|
| BAD (Generic) | "Our service is of high quality and we have a lot of experience in the sector, guaranteeing energy savings." | Subjective ("high quality"). Vague ("a lot of experience"). Does not give security to the technician. |
| GOOD (Mirroring) | "Our methodology guarantees proactive energy efficiency through IoT monitoring systems certified ISO 50001, reducing consumption by 30% according to our experience in 12 similar projects for public administrations between 2020-2024." | Uses the terminology of the tender ("proactive efficiency"). Quantifiable data (30%, 12 projects). Cites applicable regulations (ISO 50001). |
Scoring Table: What the Evaluator Is Really Looking For
To maximize your score, you must understand what is behind each award criterion. Here is a typical breakdown:
| PCAP Criterion | Points | What the Evaluator Seeks | Response Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Work Methodology | 30 pts | Clear, orderly process without gaps. | "We will implement the ITIL v4 methodology in 3 differentiated phases..." (Use diagrams). |
| Quality Plan | 15 pts | Control and error correction mechanisms. | Define concrete KPIs, SLAs (Service Level Agreements), and contingency plans. |
| Sustainability / Environment | 10 pts | Real measures, not greenwashing. | "35% reduction in emissions through ZERO label electric fleet..." |
| Improvements | 20 pts | Value added contemplated in the specifications that does not involve extra cost. | Detail quantifiable improvements, ensuring they fit within the limits set by the PCAP. |
Conclusion: Technology to Win, Not Just to Participate
Winning Envelope 2 no longer depends only on having the best product, but on having the best ability to tell it.
The combination of a good Bid Management methodology with specialized AI tools is the definitive competitive advantage.
Stop starting from scratch in every tender.
