Frequently Asked Questions
01Who is Article6 Bids for?
Article6 Bids is for small and large organisations with a tender already in progress that want an independent final challenge before submission.
That includes smaller firms bidding for an important contract, experienced internal bid teams, and larger organisations coordinating multiple contributors, schedules and supporting documents.
We add an independent evaluator-side assurance layer. We do not replace your bid team.
02What is your tender review process?
We start with the buyer's documents and evaluation criteria, then test the submission against them.
We review requirement coverage, evidence, compliance, consistency and scoring risk, then turn the findings into prioritised actions your team can resolve before submission.
The objective is assurance, not rewriting.
03What if my tender is due soon?
Send us the current draft and deadline.
For short review windows, we prioritise findings as:
Issues that could materially affect compliance, score or evaluator confidence.
Useful improvements with lower evaluation impact.
Cosmetic changes unlikely to affect the result.
We confirm whether there is enough time for a useful review before accepting the engagement.
04What does an evaluator actually need to see in a high-scoring tender response?
The evaluator needs clear answers to the published requirements, relevant evidence for important claims and credible delivery commitments.
They should not have to infer why your experience deserves marks or reconstruct the answer from several documents.
Strong bids make the route from requirement to evidence to score easy to follow.
05Do I need this if I already have an internal review team?
Potentially, yes.
Internal teams naturally know the company, solution and reasoning behind the response. That context can make gaps difficult to see.
An independent reviewer sees only what the evaluator will see and tests whether the intended evidence and commitments actually made it into the submission.
06How can you tell whether a strong tender might still lose marks?
Look for gaps between what the bidder knows and what the evaluator can score.
Typical risks include partially answered criteria, unsupported claims, weak examples, inconsistent dates or commitments, unclear implementation detail and evidence that exists but is not clearly connected to the scored question.
A strong company can still submit a weakly evidenced answer.
07How do you review a tender from the buyer or evaluator's point of view?
We start with what the buyer has asked for, how it will be scored and what evidence or outputs are expected.
Then we test the draft against that framework.
What can the evaluator actually award marks for based on what is written and evidenced here?
08What are the most common problems in otherwise good tender submissions?
Common risks include missed parts of multi-part questions, generic evidence, examples without measurable outcomes, unclear responsibilities, inconsistent commitments, weak implementation detail and important information that is difficult for the evaluator to find.
These are often assurance problems rather than writing problems.
09What is the difference between bid writing and independent bid assurance?
Bid writing develops the response.
Independent bid assurance tests an existing response against the buyer's requirements, evaluation criteria, evidence expectations and submission rules.
We challenge the submission and identify what needs attention. Your team retains ownership of the final response.
10How do I get started?
Send us your current draft together with the tender name or reference and the submission deadline.
Include the buyer documents and evaluation criteria where available.
We review the package, confirm whether the timing and scope are workable, and take it from there.