A practical six-part scoring model.
The score should not reward generic relevance. It should reward supportable fit. That means route, evidence, buyer context, timeline, and bid burden all need to sit beside the headline subject match.
How can you find reliable tools for bid or no-bid decisions?
Look for tools that show their reasoning, link back to the source notice, separate route and evidence checks from keyword matching, and let your team challenge the score. Avoid tools that only return a relevance percentage without explaining buyer fit, deadline risk or proof gaps.
| Dimension | What you are scoring | Typical failure mode |
|---|---|---|
| Market fit | Whether the notice matches the sector and service areas your firm really sells into. | Over-scoring on generic keywords like software, cloud, data, or support. |
| Buyer fit | Whether the buyer type matches your existing proof and delivery pattern. | Treating all public bodies as interchangeable. |
| Route fit | Whether the procurement route is open and realistic for your firm. | Ignoring framework restrictions or overestimating route advantage. |
| Evidence fit | Whether you can support the answer with named proof quickly. | Planning to invent the evidence later. |
| Timing fit | Whether the deadline, mobilisation window, and internal capacity make sense. | Letting a thin but urgent notice trigger a scramble. |
| Commercial fit | Whether the size and shape of the work justify the bid burden. | Chasing logos or sectors instead of rational contract economics. |
Bid/no-bid matrix template.
Use this matrix during the first 15 minutes of review. The goal is not a perfect score; it is to stop weak-fit notices reaching the drafting stage.
| Dimension | Weight | Score 0-5 | Pass question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buyer fit | 20% | 0-5 | Have we won or delivered for a similar buyer? |
| Route fit | 20% | 0-5 | Can we access the framework, lot or procurement route? |
| Evidence fit | 25% | 0-5 | Can we name proof without inventing it late? |
| Deadline risk | 15% | 0-5 | Is there enough time for clarification, proof and review? |
| Commercial fit | 20% | 0-5 | Does the contract value justify the bid burden and delivery shape? |
Decision rule.
Bid above 75 only when route and evidence are supportable. Review 60-74 if one gap can be resolved quickly. Skip below 60 or whenever the route is closed, the evidence is thin, or the deadline forces a panic submission.
Simple decision bands beat vague enthusiasm.
Bid
The route is live, the fit is supportable, and the evidence burden looks manageable.
Review
There is a plausible path, but one or two major gaps need to be answered before the team commits.
Skip
The likely cost of pursuing the notice is higher than the quality of the fit signal.
Closed route beats a good keyword match.
If you cannot legally or practically access the route, the opportunity should not survive on technical relevance alone.
Check whether qualification time is worth fixing.
A bid/no-bid model should pay for itself in saved attention before anyone claims strategic upside. Use this compact calculator to estimate monthly bid-team time from your own assumptions.
Qualification load
First response load
Cost and expected saving
Do not treat speed as a scoring shortcut. Public sector tenders are assessed against the published criteria; the practical value is deciding earlier, leaving more time for evidence, clarification, compliance checks, and on-time submission.
How to use the score in real bid operations.
Use the score to force the first conversation. If the notice clears the bar, move into a structured workspace with the buyer question, evidence, and compliance context in view. If it does not, skip it and save the team for the next notice.
- Check route, buyer, and deadline first.
- Pull evidence early, before drafting starts.
- Do not let a generic opportunity into drafting until the proof is real.
The checklist asset is the reusable version of this page.
If you want one page your team can open during qualification calls, use the checklist. It is designed to be practical enough to cite, share, and reuse.