How to write better tender responses - start by asking better questions

There is a moment in almost every tender project when a client says something completely ordinary and I stop them.

“Hang on. Go back to that.”

They usually have no idea why.

They might have casually mentioned that they've worked with the same client for 17 years. Or that several seasoned employees have been with them since they were apprentices. Or that they developed their own system because nothing on the market quite did what they needed.

To them, it isn't particularly interesting - it's just how their business works.

To me, it's potentially the beginning of a very good tender response. Because one of the things I've learned from writing tenders for businesses across Australia is this:

The first answer is almost never the answer.

“Our staff are very experienced.”

Great. How experienced?

“Well, most of the supervisors have been with us for years.”

How many years?

“I don't know. Ten? Twelve? One of them has been here nearly 20.”

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere.

What did they do before becoming supervisors? How are new employees trained? Do experienced people mentor newer staff? What happens when someone is absent? Can people work across different roles? How does that experience benefit the client?

Suddenly, our staff are very experienced isn't a vague claim anymore.

We have evidence of workforce stability. Organisational knowledge. Succession. Training capability. Service continuity. Reduced mobilisation risk.

The facts haven't changed. I've simply kept asking questions until I understood what those facts actually mean.

The problem with the first answer

Tender questions often look deceptively straightforward.

Describe your experience.

Explain your methodology.

Outline your approach to quality.

How will you ensure continuity of service?

And it's very tempting to answer exactly what has been asked. But that's how you end up with tender responses full of sentences like:

“We have an experienced team committed to delivering high-quality, customer-focused services.”

Please don't get me started on that sentence (actually, it's too late - I've already started).

There may be absolutely nothing wrong with the statement. The problem is that virtually any tenderer could say it. A good tender response needs to get underneath it.

What does experienced mean?

How do you know the service is high quality?

What does customer-focused look like at 2.00 am when something has gone spectacularly pear-shaped?

That's where the useful information lives.

“We just sort it out.”

This is another one I hear surprisingly often. I'll ask what happens when something goes wrong and the answer is:

“Oh, we just sort it out.”

Excellent.

Tell me about the last time you had to sort something out.

Now we might discover that a supervisor has authority to make decisions on site without waiting for three layers of management approval.

Or that the business maintains spare equipment specifically to avoid downtime.

Or that someone answered their phone on a Sunday morning, reorganised a crew and had the problem resolved before the client even arrived on site.

None of that was in the first answer.

The first answer was four words:

We just sort it out.

But buried inside those four words might be responsiveness, contingency planning, delegated authority, resource capacity and a genuine example of service recovery.

Those are things an evaluator can actually assess.

“We've had that client for years.”

This one is a favourite.

How many years?

“About 17.”

SEVENTEEN?

And you were just going to leave it at we have long-term client relationships?

This happens all the time.

When you've worked with someone for 17 years, it stops feeling remarkable. They're simply a client you've had forever.

But from an evaluator's perspective, a 17-year relationship may provide evidence of consistency, trust, adaptability and the ability to continue delivering as a client's requirements change.

Of course, we still need to establish why the relationship has lasted. Longevity alone doesn't prove everything.

But it gives us somewhere worthwhile to dig.

Better tender responses come from better conversations

This is why my tender writing process involves a lot of questions. And quite a few follow-up questions. And occasionally a follow-up question to the follow-up question.

My clients know their businesses far better than I ever will. They're the technical experts. But they're also standing right in the middle of them.

Things that would jump off the page to an outsider have become completely normal to them. So part of my job is to stand a little further away and ask:

Why?

How?

How long?

What happens if…?

Can you give me an example?

How do you know?

And my personal favourite:

“You just said something interesting. Tell me more about that.”

That's often where the tender starts getting good.

Evidence is usually hiding in the follow-up question

Consider the difference.

First answer:
“We have strong staff retention.”

Follow-up:
How long have your people actually been with you?

Now we can provide numbers, examples and explain what that stability means for the contract.

First answer:
“We have comprehensive quality systems.”

Follow-up:
Tell me what actually happens when someone finds a defect.

Now we can explain reporting, rectification, root-cause analysis, corrective action and verification.

First answer:
“We understand government requirements.”

Follow-up:
Which government clients have you worked for, what did you deliver and what did you learn?

Now we have relevant experience rather than a claim.

First answer:
“We're responsive.”

Follow-up:
Give me an example of a time a client needed something urgently.

Now we have evidence.

That's the difference between telling an evaluator you're good and giving them enough information to reach that conclusion themselves.

And yes, this matters even more now

AI can write a perfectly polished response to the information you give it. Sometimes frighteningly polished.

But there's an important catch.

What if the best information was never provided in the first place?

If the prompt says:

We have experienced staff and good retention. Write a response about workforce capability.

AI can make that sound lovely.

What it can't necessarily know is that one supervisor started as an apprentice 16 years ago, half the management team progressed internally, employees are cross-trained across critical roles, and the company hasn't needed an external supervisor for a major contract in eight years.

That information has to come from somewhere.

And quite often, it comes from someone asking another question.

Your business probably contains better tender answers than you think

Long-term clients. Employees who've grown with the business. Systems you've developed because existing ones weren't good enough. A mistake ten years ago that completely changed the way you manage risk today. A client problem you solved so effectively you've forgotten it was ever a problem. The little operational decisions you make every day because experience has taught you they work.

None of these necessarily announce themselves as TENDER DIFFERENTIATOR. Usually they're buried in conversation. Which is why, when I'm working on a tender, I'm rarely satisfied with the first answer.

Not because the first answer is wrong. Because I've learned there is very often something much better hiding behind it.

My job isn't to make a business sound impressive. It's to keep asking questions until we discover what is impressive about it.

And then make sure the evaluator doesn't miss it.

Need help?

Need help uncovering the evidence behind your tender responses? TenderWise works with Australian businesses responding to government and commercial tenders, turning real experience, capability and everyday operational knowledge into clear, compelling and evidence-based responses.