Why Your Tender Is Losing Points: Three Costly Mistakes
Even highly capable architectural practices frequently submit tender responses that fail to win work—not because they lack the skills to deliver excellent projects, but because their submissions contain fundamental flaws that undermine their competitiveness. After reviewing hundreds of architecture tender submissions over the past two decades, the following three critical mistakes have repeatedly emerged:
1. Incomplete, Misaligned and Poorly Formatted Responses
The most damaging tender mistake is failing to address every criterion and every question within those criteria. Practices either skip requirements entirely, provide responses that don't actually answer what was asked, or structure their response so illogically that it is difficult for assessors to align what was submitted with what was asked. Equally problematic is including extensive content that wasn't requested—pages of company history when only relevant experience was sought, or additional project examples beyond the requested number.
Tender evaluators work from scoring matrices. If a criterion asks for three things and you provide two brilliantly, whilst adding five things they didn't ask for, you'll still lose points for the missing item. The extra content doesn't compensate—it often just obscures what evaluators are seeking.
Incomplete responses can indicate non-compliance and result in immediate disqualification for mandatory criteria, point deductions for weighted criteria, and create a negative impression suggesting poor attention to detail or inability to follow instructions.
The solution: Create a detailed response checklist as you read tender documents and use the same order and numbering format for responses as the given criteria or response schedules. List each criterion, break down multi-part questions into individual components, and note page limits. Physically tick off each requirement as you address it. Structure responses to answer directly what's asked before providing supporting information, and strictly respect page limits—they exist to test your ability to prioritise and work within constraints. Before submitting, verify that every box is ticked and that your headings provide clear navigation and alignment between the detailed tender requirements and your submission response.
Download our schedule of tasks and responsibilities template here.
2. Applying Boilerplate Responses
The second fatal mistake is submitting responses that could have come from any architectural practice tendering for any project. This occurs when practices copy and paste from previous submissions without meaningfully tailoring the content, or rely on their standard capability statement as the core response. Even worse, the inclusion of content copied directly from an earlier submission that refers to another prospective project is a surprisingly common mistake, which immediately highlights a lack of attention to detail and a disregard for the tender’s unique requirements.
Generic descriptions like "We are an award-winning firm that delivers innovative, sustainable design solutions" could describe hundreds of practices. Similarly, describing basic architectural process as methodology—"Our design process begins with research and stakeholder engagement"—demonstrates no specific understanding of the client's unique challenges.
Boilerplate content suggests you're submitting to multiple tenders simultaneously, that this project isn't a priority, and that you might approach the project itself with the same lack of customisation. When all tenderers submit similar generic content, clients have no basis for meaningful comparison and are forced to fall back on lowest price.
The solution: Before writing anything, understand what keeps this client awake at night about this project. What makes it different from others in this typology? What specific challenges does the site or context present? Even when starting from base content, customise extensively. Rather than stating "We have extensive experience in healthcare design," explain: "Your project presents the specific challenge of integrating contemporary clinical facilities within a heritage-listed building. We addressed precisely this challenge at [Project Name], delivering [specific outcome] through [specific approach]." And always proofread your submission before lodging, as a final opportunity to finesse and remove any obvious evidence of adapted content from previous responses.
3. Ill-Defined or Unclear Messaging
The third critical mistake is submitting without a clear, well-articulated value proposition. Many practices dive straight into describing who they are, how long they've been in business, and their awards, without ever clearly answering: "Why should the client select our practice for this specific project?"
It’s vital to demonstrate to tender evaluators from the get-go, and throughout your submission, that you understand the challenges they face as well as their vision and aspirations for the project, and that you bring clear and unique value to the appointment.
Unclear messaging results from not thinking strategically about the opportunity. Practices that skip the strategic positioning workshop—analysing the client's needs, assessing the competition, and defining their unique strengths for this project—produce submissions that meander without focus. Every section should reinforce your overarching value proposition, yet many submissions present disconnected information that forces evaluators to work hard to understand what makes you different.
The solution: Before drafting, workshop your value proposition with your team. Identify the top three to five reasons why the client should select your practice for this specific project. These reasons should directly address the client's needs and challenges, not just describe your general capabilities. Once defined, weave your value proposition throughout every section—executive summary, relevant experience selection, methodology, project understanding, and team composition. Each response should reinforce why you're uniquely positioned to deliver success on this project.
Avoiding these three mistakes transforms submissions from generic, incomplete responses into compelling, strategically focused proposals that clearly demonstrate your value.
Alicia Brown is the founder and director of New Doors, a marketing agency specialising in the built environment. With 20 years of experience supporting architectural practices, contact New Doors at alicia@newdoors.com.au for strategic tender support.