How to Score Higher on Quality Submissions

Most evaluators use a 0 to 5 scoring scale. The difference between scoring a 3 ("acceptable") and a 5 ("excellent") on every question is the difference between losing and winning. A 3 means you met the minimum. A 5 means the evaluator put down their pen and thought, "This team clearly knows what they are doing."

Yet most bidders write 3-level answers and wonder why they came second. They answer the question, technically. They tick the box. But they give the evaluator nothing to reward. No specifics, no evidence, no sign that this response was written for this contract rather than copy-pasted from the last one.

This post breaks down how quality scoring actually works, what separates each level, and what you can do to move your answers from acceptable to outstanding.

How Scoring Works

The most common quality evaluation method uses a 0 to 5 scale. Each evaluator reads your answer, assigns a score, and multiplies it by the weighting for that question. If a question is worth 25% and you score a 4, you get 100 points. If you score a 3 on the same question, you get 75 points. That 25-point gap on a single question can be the margin between first and second place.

Here is what each score typically means:

Score	Label	What It Means
0	Unacceptable	No response provided, or the response completely fails to address the question.
1	Poor	Significant concerns. Major gaps in the response. Fundamental elements missing.
2	Below Average	Some relevant information, but notable weaknesses. The answer partially addresses the question with obvious omissions.
3	Acceptable	Meets the basic requirements. Nothing more. The answer is adequate but gives the evaluator no reason to award extra marks.
4	Good	Exceeds requirements with clear evidence and detail. The response demonstrates genuine understanding and capability.
5	Excellent	Outstanding response. Innovative thinking, exceptional evidence, and clear added value beyond the stated requirements.

Remember the multiplier

Each score is multiplied by the weighting for that question. A question weighted at 25% will generate far more points than one weighted at 5%. This means your effort should follow the weighting. Spend the most time on the highest-weighted questions.

What a Score of 3 Looks Like

Take a common tender question: "Describe your approach to project management."

Here is a typical 3-level answer:

Score: 3 / Acceptable

"We use PRINCE2 methodology and assign a dedicated project manager to every contract. We hold regular progress meetings and provide monthly reports."

This answer is not wrong. It addresses the question. The evaluator can see that the bidder has a methodology and will assign a project manager. But it provides no specifics. Who is the project manager? What does "regular" mean? What do the reports contain? Could this same paragraph appear in any proposal for any client? Yes, it could. And that is exactly why it scores a 3.

A 3 tells the evaluator: "We can probably do this, but we have not thought about how it applies to your project specifically."

What a Score of 5 Looks Like

Same question. Same bidder. Different answer:

Score: 5 / Excellent

"We assign a PRINCE2-certified project manager from day one. For this contract, Jane Carter will lead, bringing 8 years of experience on similar facilities management projects. We use a three-tier reporting structure: weekly site-level updates, fortnightly client progress meetings with actions tracked in a shared register, and monthly executive summaries with RAG status on all deliverables. Risk is managed through a live risk register reviewed weekly, with escalation triggers defined at mobilisation. On our recent contract with Birmingham City Council, this approach delivered the project 2 weeks ahead of programme and 3% under budget."

Read that again. Notice what changed. The project manager has a name and a track record. The meeting cadence is defined with specific frequencies. The reporting structure has three tiers, each with a clear purpose. Risk management is not a vague promise but a defined process with escalation triggers. And there is a concrete result from a real project with a named client, actual timescales, and a budget figure.

The evaluator reading this answer knows exactly what they will get. They do not have to guess. They do not have to assume. The evidence is on the page.

The Formula for a 5

Every high-scoring answer contains the same six components. Miss one and you are likely capped at a 4. Miss two and you are back to a 3.

Direct answer to the question asked

Start by answering the question in the first sentence. Do not build up to it. Evaluators are reading dozens of responses. They want to see immediately that you understood the question and have a clear position.

Specific to this contract, not generic

Reference the client by name. Reference the project. If the tender is for a school facilities contract, say "school facilities contract," not "this project." Show the evaluator you wrote this answer for them, not for every tender you respond to this month.

Named personnel with relevant experience

Do not say "a dedicated project manager." Say "Jane Carter, PRINCE2 Practitioner, 8 years on similar contracts." Names make your response tangible. They tell the evaluator this is a real team, not a theoretical one.

Quantified evidence from past performance

Numbers are the currency of a 5. "Delivered 2 weeks ahead of programme." "Achieved 98.7% customer satisfaction rating." "Reduced defect rate by 40% over 12 months." Vague claims like "we have extensive experience" score a 3 at best.

Clear process with defined frequencies and escalation

"Regular meetings" is a 3. "Fortnightly client progress meetings with actions tracked in a shared register" is a 5. Define the cadence, the format, and what happens when something goes wrong.

Added value or innovation beyond minimum requirements

What are you offering that goes beyond what was asked? A live dashboard for the client. An additional layer of quality checks. A training programme for their staff. Added value signals that you are not just meeting the brief but thinking about how to exceed it.

Common Traps That Cap You at 3

Even experienced bid writers fall into these patterns. Each one limits your score regardless of how well you understand the subject.

Using "we will" without saying how

"We will ensure quality at every stage" means nothing without a method. Replace it with the actual process: what you will do, when you will do it, and who is responsible.

Referencing your ISO certification without describing your actual process

Saying "We are ISO 9001 certified" tells the evaluator you passed an audit. It does not tell them what your quality management actually looks like on this contract. Describe the process, then mention the certification as supporting evidence.

Writing generically so the same answer fits any contract

Evaluators can spot a copy-paste response immediately. If your answer does not mention the client, the project name, or any detail specific to this opportunity, it reads as a template. And templates score a 3.

Not referencing the client or project by name

This is related to the point above but worth stating on its own. If the tender is for "Leeds General Hospital Cleaning Services," use that exact phrase in your answer. It takes five seconds and signals to the evaluator that this response was written specifically for them.

Exceeding word counts

When a question has a word limit, evaluators stop reading at that limit. Some procurement frameworks require them to. Anything beyond the limit is wasted effort, and if your best evidence is in the final paragraph, it may never be seen.

Practical Tips for Writing Higher-Scoring Answers

The following techniques are straightforward, but they make a measurable difference when applied consistently across your submission.

Read the evaluation criteria before writing anything

This sounds obvious, but a surprising number of bid teams start writing before they have fully read the scoring methodology. The evaluation criteria tell you exactly what the evaluator is looking for. If the criteria say "evidence of experience on similar contracts," your answer must include case studies. If they say "demonstration of understanding of the requirement," you need to paraphrase the requirement back in your own words before describing your approach.

Mirror the language of the question

If the question asks for "your approach to," describe a process. If it asks for "evidence of," provide case studies with numbers. If it asks for "how you will," give a plan with dates and milestones. The question format tells you what type of answer is expected. Match it precisely.

Question Phrasing	What the Evaluator Expects
"Describe your approach to..."	A defined process with steps, roles, and frequencies
"Provide evidence of..."	Named case studies with measurable outcomes
"How will you..."	A plan with dates, milestones, and accountable personnel
"Demonstrate your understanding of..."	Paraphrasing the requirement, then showing how your solution addresses it

Use subheadings within long answers

Evaluators scan before they read. If your answer to a 750-word question is a single block of text, the evaluator has to work hard to find the information they need. Break your answer into subheadings that map to the components of the question. If the question asks about your approach, your team, and your track record, use three subheadings: "Our Approach," "Proposed Team," and "Relevant Experience." The evaluator can then score each component quickly and accurately.

Front-load your strongest evidence

Put your best material in the first third of every answer. If the evaluator stops reading early (because of time pressure, word limits, or fatigue), your strongest points should already be on the table. Save supporting detail and additional context for the middle and end.

A practical test for your answers

Read only the first two sentences of each answer. Can you tell what score it deserves? If those two sentences sound generic, the evaluator's first impression is already a 3. Rewrite your opening lines to include something specific: a name, a number, a direct statement of what you will do.

Where to Focus Your Effort

Scoring a 5 on every question requires significant effort per answer. The good news is that you do not need to score 5 on everything. You need to score 5 on the questions that matter most.

Look at the evaluation weighting before you allocate your writing time. A score of 5 on a question weighted at 25% is worth far more than a 5 on a question weighted at 5%. If you have limited time (and you always do), spend it on the highest-weighted questions first. Get those to a 5. Then work down the weighting list.

For the lower-weighted questions, a solid 4 is often enough to stay competitive. The maths works in your favour when you concentrate your best writing on the sections that carry the most points.

If you are working on your quality scoring and want to make sure your submission is structurally sound from the start, read our guide on building a compliance matrix that evaluators actually use. Getting the compliance foundation right means evaluators reach your quality answers with confidence that your bid is complete and well organised.

Write higher-scoring submissions, faster

RFP Matrix extracts every requirement from your tender documents automatically, so you can see the full picture before you write a single word. Know the questions, understand the weightings, and focus your effort where it counts.

Get started