Fictional sample. The tender, the company and the draft are invented to show what a review looks like.
Bid draft review
Managed IT Service Desk 2027 to 2030 (fictional)
Westmoor District Council (fictional) · Nov 2, 2026
Checked against: Northgate IT Services (fictional)
Summary
- Critical
- 3
- High
- 5
- Improvement
- 0
- To check
- 0
5 of 6 questions matched to an answer. 471 words reviewed.
Fix list, ranked by marks at stake
- 1.Critical
Cyber Essentials Plus expires before the contract starts
At stake: 15%Your Cyber Essentials Plus certificate in the evidence file expires on 2026-12-01, before the expected contract start (2027-04-01).
Tender: Invitation to tender (fictional), page 2“Suppliers must hold Cyber Essentials Plus for the whole contract. Describe your security controls.”
Your draft: Question 2 Information security, paragraph 1“We hold Cyber Essentials Plus and ISO 27001 certification across our service.”
Fix: Renew Cyber Essentials Plus, or state the renewal date in your answer with evidence that it is booked.
- 2.Critical
Question 3 is over its word limit
At stake: 10%The limit is 300 words. Your answer is 346 words, 46 over. The tender says text over the limit is not read or may be disqualified.
Tender: Invitation to tender (fictional), page 2“Question 3 Mobilisation”
Your draft: Question 3 Mobilisation, paragraph 1“We will mobilise in three phases over eight weeks. Phase one covers discovery: we meet the incumbent, collect the asset register and copy the knowledge base into our system. Phase two runs the two service desks side by s”
Fix: Cut the answer to 300 words or fewer. Keep the parts that respond directly to the question.
- 3.Critical
Professional indemnity insurance figure does not match your evidence
Your answer states £5,000,000 cover. The policy in your evidence file shows £2,000,000.
Tender: Invitation to tender (fictional), page 3“Pass/fail. Confirm you hold professional indemnity insurance of at least £2 million.”
Your draft: Question 5 Insurance, paragraph 1“We hold professional indemnity insurance of £5 million with a leading insurer.”
Fix: Correct the figure in the answer, or raise the cover and update the evidence file before you submit.
- 4.High
Question 1 may not cover one of its parts
At stake: 20%The question asks you to address: "monthly performance reporting to the council". We found little of this in your answer (key words: performance, reporting, monthly, council).
Tender: Invitation to tender (fictional), page 2“monthly performance reporting to the council”
Your draft: Question 1 Service delivery, paragraph 1“Our service desk logs every call in our ticketing system and prioritises it against the council's four priority levels. Priority 1 incidents are answered within 15 minutes and resolved within 4 hours.”
Fix: Add a short paragraph that answers this part directly, using the buyer's own words so the evaluator can find it.
- 5.High
ISO 27001 is claimed but not in your evidence file
At stake: 15%Your answer says you hold ISO 27001. There is no confirmed ISO 27001 certificate in the evidence file this review used.
Tender: Invitation to tender (fictional), page 2“Question 2 Information security”
Your draft: Question 2 Information security, paragraph 1“We hold Cyber Essentials Plus and ISO 27001 certification across our service.”
Fix: Add the ISO 27001 certificate (with its expiry date) to your evidence file, or remove the claim if it is not current.
- 6.High
Question 4 relies on general assurances
At stake: 10%The answer uses phrases such as "we are committed to", "we will ensure", "high-quality" but gives no figures, examples or measurable commitments.
Tender: Invitation to tender (fictional), page 3“Question 4 Social value”
Your draft: Question 4 Social value, paragraph 1“We are committed to the local community and we will ensure high-quality opportunities for local people.”
Fix: Back each claim with a number, a named example or a commitment the buyer can measure (for example a response time or a past result).
- 7.High
Social value answer to question 4 has no measurable commitment
At stake: 10%The question is about social value. Your answer has no numbers, targets or dates the buyer can hold you to.
Tender: Invitation to tender (fictional), page 3“Question 4 Social value”
Your draft: Question 4 Social value, paragraph 1“We are committed to the local community and we will ensure high-quality opportunities for local people. We pride ourselves on best practice in everything we do and we are fully committed to the district.”
Fix: State specific commitments: how many, by when and how you will report them (for example apprenticeships, local spend or volunteering hours).
- 8.High
No answer found for question 6
At stake: 5%The tender asks question 6 (5% weighting). We could not find an answer to it in your draft.
Tender: Invitation to tender (fictional), page 3“Question 6 Exit plan”
Fix: Add an answer headed "6" that responds to: Exit plan
Question by question
| Question | Weighting | Limit | Words | Status | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Service delivery | 20% | 500 words | 55 | Part missing | 1 |
| 2 Information security | 15% | 400 words | 24 | Answered | 2 |
| 3 Mobilisation | 10% | 300 words | 346 | Over limit | 1 |
| 4 Social value | 10% | 300 words | 34 | Answered | 2 |
| 5 Insurance | Pass/fail | - | 12 | Pass/fail | 1 |
| 6 Exit plan | 5% | 250 words | - | No answer found | 1 |
Evidence gaps
- Cyber Essentials Plus expires before the contract startsRenew Cyber Essentials Plus, or state the renewal date in your answer with evidence that it is booked.
- Professional indemnity insurance figure does not match your evidenceCorrect the figure in the answer, or raise the cover and update the evidence file before you submit.
- ISO 27001 is claimed but not in your evidence fileAdd the ISO 27001 certificate (with its expiry date) to your evidence file, or remove the claim if it is not current.
Key dates in the tender
- Clarification questions close
- 12 January 2027
- Submission deadline
- 26 January 2027
- Expected contract start
- 1 April 2027
How your review was made
Tender documents read: Invitation to tender (fictional) (3 pages)
Draft files read: Northgate draft response (fictional).docx
- Every scored question, its weighting and its limit, read from the tender
- Each answer matched to its question
- Word and page limits counted
- Each part of multi-part questions looked for
- Certificate, insurance and turnover claims compared with your evidence file
- General assurances without figures or examples
- Social value commitments
Second check: 8 confirmed, 0 downgraded, 0 dropped.
Limitations
- This review is feedback on your draft. It does not predict or promise a score, a shortlist place or a contract award.
- It reads the tender documents and draft you gave us. Documents we could not read, and any clarifications the buyer has published since, are not covered.
- You remain responsible for the accuracy of your bid and for submitting it through the buyer's own process.
- Quotes from the tender and your draft are shown as written. Our findings are in English.