Why Good Suppliers Still Lose Public Sector Tenders

One consequence of widespread AI use is that many tender responses are beginning to sound very similar.

Many suppliers assume that if they have a strong product, competitive pricing and relevant experience, they should perform well in public sector procurement exercises.

In practice, good suppliers score poorly for reasons that have little to do with the quality of their service.

At Kafico, we regularly support organisations assessing suppliers, reviewing governance arrangements, scrutinising compliance evidence and evaluating technology proposals. We also support suppliers preparing for customer scrutiny, governance reviews and procurement processes.

The Procurement Act Has Shifted the Conversation

The Procurement Act 2023 introduced the concept of the Most Advantageous Tender (MAT), replacing the previous focus on the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT).

While price remains important, public sector buyers now have greater flexibility to consider quality, social value, innovation, delivery confidence and wider public benefit when evaluating tenders.

This means the cheapest bid is not necessarily the winning bid.. Buyers are looking for evidence that suppliers can successfully deliver what they promise.

Answer the Question That Was Asked

This sounds obvious, but it remains one of the most common reasons suppliers lose marks.

Suppliers often provide extensive information about their organisation, products and achievements, but fail to answer the specific evaluation question.

Public sector evaluators are usually required to score against predetermined criteria.

If the question asks:

If the question asks how you will manage information governance risks during delivery,

Explain how risks are identified, who owns them, how often they are reviewed and how they are escalated. Don’t simply list the policies you have in place; show how those policies operate in practice.

Strong responses:

• Answer the question directly

• Follow the evaluation criteria

• Provide evidence

• Demonstrate outcomes

• Avoid unnecessary background information

  
  

The best tender responses make the evaluator's job easy.

Evidence Scores Better Than Claims

Many tender responses contain statements such as:

"We take security seriously."

"We have robust governance arrangements."

"We are committed to quality."

These statements are unlikely to score highly on their own because evaluators are looking for evidence that is specific to your organisation.

For example

“We have an Information Governance Group that meets monthly, reviews incidents and DPIAs, and reports key risks to senior leadership.”

Or

“We completed a DPIA for this product in March 2025 and reviewed it following changes to the onboarding process.”

Or:

“Our DPO has over X years’ experience supporting health and care organisations with data protection, DPIAs, incidents and supplier assurance.”

Or;

“We maintain a live risk register, review it monthly, and assign named owners and actions to each high-risk item.”

The strongest responses make the evidence about your organisation, your product and your way of working.

Governance Matters More Than Many Suppliers Realise

Particularly where technology, personal data or AI are involved, governance is becoming a significant differentiator.

Customers increasingly want to understand:

• How risks are managed

• Who provides oversight

• How incidents are handled

• What controls are in place

• How decisions are reviewed

• How transparency is maintained

For AI suppliers, this may include:

• AI governance arrangements

• AI risk assessments

• Transparency documentation

• Human oversight processes

• Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs)

• Supplier assurance documentation

• Testing fairness, performance and edge cases

The suppliers that have this information readily available are often better prepared for procurement scrutiny.

AI Can Help Write a Tender but does not Provide Credibility.

The use of generative AI in tender writing is becoming increasingly common.

Used well, AI can help structure responses, improve consistency and reduce burden, but responses can sound overly polished and contain very little substance.

Common characteristics include:

• Generic best-practice language

• Repeated buzzwords

• Vague descriptions of governance

• Limited evidence

• Few real-world examples

• Failure to answer the specific question

  
  

One unintended consequence of widespread AI use is that many tender responses are beginning to sound very similar.

Phrases such as:

"We are committed to excellence."

"We place customers at the heart of everything we do."

"Our robust governance framework ensures best practice."

can appear repeatedly in submissions.

What stands out are:

• Specific examples

• Measurable outcomes

• Lessons learned

• Evidence of delivery

• Demonstrable expertise

Final Thoughts

As tenders sound more polished and less individualised, standing out could depend on showing your organisation. Describing your experience, your approach, your examples, your governance processes, your lessons learned and your real experience.

A strong tender response should not read like it could have been written for any supplier.

Need Help Preparing for Procurement Scrutiny?

Whether you're responding to a public sector tender, preparing for customer due diligence or seeking to strengthen your governance arrangements, we can help.

Contact Us