5 Critical Mistakes That Kill IT Tender Responses (And How to Avoid Them)

5 Critical Mistakes That Kill IT Tender Responses (and How to Avoid Them)

Last week, I sat in a tender evaluation meeting where three responses lay on the table. Same client requirements. Same budget range. Same deadline. Yet the quality difference was staggering.

One response was a 47-page template with the client’s name hastily find-and-replaced throughout. Another was beautifully formatted but completely missed the client’s real pain points. The third understood exactly what the client needed and why—it won by a landslide.

After reviewing hundreds of tender responses across Australia and New Zealand, I’ve identified five critical mistakes that separate winning submissions from expensive failures. The good news? They’re all completely avoidable.

Mistake #1: The Template Trap

The mistake: Using a standard template response with minimal customisation.

I recently compared five responses for a major infrastructure upgrade tender. Four of the five were clearly template-driven—same section headings, similar technical specifications, generic executive summaries. The winner? Completely custom approach that spoke directly to the client’s unique challenges.

Why it kills your response: Procurement teams can spot template responses within the first few pages. It signals that you either don’t understand their specific situation or don’t care enough to invest the time to understand it.

The fix: Start every tender with a blank page. Use your templates as reference material, not foundations. Every section should be written specifically for that client’s situation. In Australian and New Zealand markets where relationship-building matters enormously, this customisation is essential.

Mistake #2: Skipping the Deep Dive

The mistake: Accepting the tender documentation at face value without digging deeper.

Most companies read the RFP, interpret the requirements, and start writing. They completely miss the opportunity to understand why this tender exists and what the real challenges are.

The real opportunity: Every tender represents a problem the client couldn’t solve internally. The tender documents tell you what they want—but rarely why they need it or what’s really keeping them awake at night.

Smart tender writers ask questions like:

• “What triggered the decision to go to market now?”
• “What happened with the previous solution/provider?”
• “What does success look like 12 months after implementation?”
• “What are the political/stakeholder dynamics we should understand?”

The fix: Use the clarification period aggressively. In Australia and New Zealand’s relationship-based markets, clients expect—and reward—vendors who invest time in understanding their business. Every question should demonstrate your business understanding, not just technical curiosity.

Mistake #3: The Incumbent’s Curse

The horror story: Recently, I reviewed responses for a $2.8M government technology refresh. The incumbent provider submitted what was clearly a rush job—inconsistent formatting, vague deliverables, and pricing that looked cobbled together from old proposals.

Their response was 23 pages. The winner’s response was 67 pages of detailed methodology, clear deliverables, and demonstrated understanding of the agency’s evolving needs.

The incumbent lost a contract they’d held for five years because they assumed their track record would carry them through.

Why incumbents fail:

• Overconfidence in existing relationships
• Assumption that “they know what we can do”
• Less effort in demonstrating value
• Taking the client relationship for granted

The fix: Treat every tender like you’re the outsider trying to win new business. Australian government procurement has become increasingly rigorous about fair evaluation processes—personal relationships matter, but they won’t overcome a poor response.

Mistake #4: The Process Blind Spot

The mistake: Focussing on what you’ll deliver instead of how you’ll deliver it.

Most tender responses are product catalogues—lists of features, technical specifications, and capability statements. They completely miss what clients actually buy: confidence in successful delivery.

What procurement teams really evaluate:

• Can this provider actually deliver what they’re promising?
• Do they understand our operational constraints?
• What happens when things go wrong?
• How will we measure progress and success?

The delivery context matters:

Government tenders: Extensive stakeholder consultation, rigid change control, public accountability pressures, complex approval hierarchies.

Private sector tenders: Faster decisions but higher expectations, more flexibility but less tolerance for delays, immediate ROI pressure.

The fix: Dedicate significant space to your delivery methodology. Show them exactly how you’ll manage stakeholders, handle changes, communicate progress, and ensure successful outcomes.

Mistake #5: The Pricing Puzzle

The mistake: Treating pricing as a simple cost-plus exercise without understanding the client’s budget reality.

I’ve seen companies lose tenders not because their prices were too high, but because their pricing structure made no sense to the client or didn’t align with their procurement constraints.

Common pricing failures:

• Lump sum pricing with no breakdown of value components
• Hourly rates without clear scope boundaries
• No explanation of what drives cost variations
• Missing the client’s budget and appropriation realities

The fix: Price for outcomes, not inputs. Show clients exactly what they’re buying and why it costs what it does. Include options that let them adjust scope to meet budget realities.

The Winning Formula

After seeing hundreds of successful and failed tender responses, the pattern is clear:

Winning tenders demonstrate:

1. Deep client understanding beyond the RFP requirements
2. Relevant experience specific to their industry and challenges
3. Clear delivery methodology showing how you’ll manage complexity
4. Transparent value proposition what they’re buying and why
5. Local market knowledge understanding Australian/NZ operating context

Your Next Steps

Before your next tender response:

1. Challenge your template dependency – Start with a blank page
2. Invest in discovery – Use every opportunity to understand the real challenges
3. Focus on delivery confidence – Show them how you’ll succeed, not just what you’ll deliver
4. Price for transparency – Make your costs understandable and defensible
5. Demonstrate local knowledge – Show you understand their operating environment

The companies winning the most tenders in Australia and New Zealand aren’t necessarily the biggest or cheapest—they’re the ones that best demonstrate understanding of client needs and confidence in successful delivery.

Ready to transform your tender approach? I’ve created a comprehensive Tender Response Checklist that walks through each critical element of winning submissions. Try our new Tender cost calculator, which will help you identify all the hidden costs and start improving your win rate immediately.

Working on a critical tender response? Let’s discuss how strategic tender writing can turn your next opportunity into a winning contract.