Evaluators of tenders and grant proposals rarely read for pleasure. They work through stacks of submissions with a scoring sheet, a deadline and limited patience. They award points for what they can find, in the place they expect to find it, expressed in terms of the criteria they were given. Proposals that make that job easy score well. Proposals that make evaluators hunt for answers do not, however good the underlying idea.
Start with the terms of reference
Before writing anything, break the terms of reference (ToR) or request for proposals into its parts: the objectives, the scope of work, the required deliverables, the timeline, the qualifications requested and the evaluation criteria with their weightings. Build a compliance matrix that lists each requirement alongside the section of your proposal that responds to it. The matrix becomes your outline and, later, your final checklist.
Pay particular attention to how marks are distributed. If methodology carries forty per cent of the score, it deserves a proportionate share of your effort and your pages. A beautifully written company history that earns five points should not be given the space that belongs to the section worth forty.
Structure the proposal to mirror the criteria
- Understanding of the assignment. Show that you grasp the context, the problem the client is trying to solve and the main risks, in your own words, rather than repeating the ToR back.
- Technical approach and methodology. Describe phases, activities, tools, sampling or analysis methods and how each deliverable will be produced. Be specific enough that an evaluator can picture the work.
- Work plan. Present a realistic timeline with milestones, responsibilities and review points that is consistent with the methodology.
- Team and CVs. Name a person for each role and tailor each CV to the assignment, highlighting directly relevant experience and qualifications.
- Quality assurance and risk management. Explain how you will assure quality, manage risks and handle ethics, safeguarding and data protection.
- Organisational credentials. Summarise relevant experience and attach the mandatory documents, such as company registration and tax compliance certificates.
Write for the scorer
Small choices in presentation add up to a significant advantage:
- Use headings that match the wording of the evaluation criteria, so that scorers can find each answer immediately.
- Lead each section with the answer, then explain how you will deliver it.
- Use short paragraphs, and use tables for work plans, deliverables and team roles.
- Quantify wherever possible: numbers of sites, respondents, workshops and days of effort.
- Avoid unexplained jargon and promotional adjectives. Evidence persuades more than enthusiasm.
- Stay within the page limits. Content beyond the limit is often simply not read.
Tailor every CV to the role
Evaluators usually score the team on how closely each person’s experience matches the role proposed. A generic CV forces the scorer to guess. Instead, reorder each CV so that the most relevant assignments, qualifications and publications appear first, and describe past work in terms of what the ToR asks for: similar sectors, similar methods, similar deliverables. State each person’s role, level of effort and responsibilities in the assignment, and make sure the names, titles and dates match across the proposal, the work plan and the budget. A shorter CV that speaks directly to the role will normally score better than a long one that does not.
Make the financial and technical proposals agree
A common reason strong technical proposals lose points is inconsistency with the financial proposal. If the methodology promises fieldwork in six locations, the budget should show it. If the team lists a senior expert for thirty days, those days must appear in the cost schedule. Check arithmetic, taxes and currency, and make sure the budget notes explain any assumptions.
Evaluators read both documents, and they notice mismatches. Value for money is not about being the cheapest. It is about showing that the price is a credible reflection of the work described.
The final check before submission
- Every requirement in the compliance matrix is addressed and cross-referenced.
- Every mandatory annex is included and current, such as registration documents, tax compliance certificates, CVs and references.
- Names, titles, dates and numbers are consistent across the technical proposal, financial proposal and annexes.
- Formatting follows the instructions, including page limits, file formats, file naming and required forms.
- Someone who did not write the proposal has read it as an evaluator would and scored it against the criteria.
- The submission route is confirmed, with time to spare before the deadline.
Common mistakes
- Recycled content that never mentions the client’s actual context.
- Missing or expired annexes, which can disqualify an otherwise strong bid.
- Days and costs that do not reconcile between documents.
- Ignoring the weightings and spending the effort in the wrong places.
- Leaving submission to the last hour and meeting a portal failure or a formatting error.
How Melanel can help
Melanel supports organisations with proposal writing, technical proposal review, budget preparation, donor compliance review and resource mobilisation strategy. For teams who want to build their own capability, we also run practical proposal-writing workshops for NGOs covering technical writing, budgeting, compliance requirements and evaluation criteria.
