If AI Is Evaluating Your Bid, Good Proposal Writing Matters More Than Ever

I just returned from the annual APMP Bid & Proposal Conference in Denver, Colorado. One of the more interesting sessions came from Sam Cooper of Procurement Sciences, who explored the use of AI in proposal evaluation.

Many organisations have focused heavily on how AI can help them write bids faster. Far fewer have considered what happens when evaluators begin using AI to assess them.

Why I suspect AI is already being used in bid evaluation

In contrast to the plentiful guidance on checking for the use of AI in submissions, there’s very little detail on whether UK government bodies are using AI to evaluate bids, or how. But I suspect that the MOD and Crown Commercial Services (CCS) are doing so (at least in part).

While I don’t have any direct evidence of that, my rationale for it is:

• CCS has apparently declined to answer direct questions as to whether or not they are using AI to evaluate. Whilst that is not proof in itself, it does raise reasonable questions.
• The MOD have mandated the use of MS Word for submissions in a number of recent procurements. This is relevant because structured Word documents are significantly easier for AI tools to ingest, interpret and analyse than flattened PDFs.

Other suggestive evidence:

• The UK Government has spent years developing guidance, frameworks and procurement pathways for the adoption of AI across the public sector. CCS operates dedicated AI procurement frameworks and publishes guidance on the responsible use and procurement of artificial intelligence technologies. The Government’s own Guidelines for AI Procurement were developed in collaboration with CCS, the Government Digital Service and the Office for AI.
• The UK Government’s broader direction of travel is unmistakable. The recently updated Artificial Intelligence Playbook for the UK Government explicitly encourages departments and public sector organisations to adopt AI technologies to improve efficiency and productivity.

And if my assumption is correct, many of the proposal-writing disciplines we have advocated for years have become even more important.

What form could AI evaluation be taking?

Of course, I’m not suggesting contracts are about to be awarded by robots while evaluators sit in the pub. Public sector procurement still requires accountability, moderation and human oversight. But it is increasingly plausible that evaluators are using AI tools to support activities such as:

• Mapping responses against evaluation criteria
• Identifying missing evidence
• Summarising long submissions
• Highlighting compliance gaps
• Comparing responses across bidders
• Flagging inconsistencies or unsupported claims

If that is happening, then the consequences for bid writers are obvious:

• Poorly structured bids become harder to evaluate.
• Weak evidence becomes easier to spot.
• Bloated prose becomes a liability.

The irony is that none of this is new

One of the more ironic aspects of this AI discussion is that many of the recommendations are simply the same advice we have been giving for years.

If AI is being used to evaluate submissions, then the familiar themes of good practice for writers have become even more important. These were paraphrased by Sam as follows:

1. Answer the requirement immediately

Make sure you answer the requirement right up front in each section or subsection. In the first sentence if possible. If a question asks how you will manage the transition period, then the opening sentence of the response should clearly state how you will manage the transition period, not three paragraphs later.

Whilst bid writers can worry that direct answers feel simplistic, the reality is that evaluators appreciate clarity and AI tools will be no different. A response that immediately and explicitly answers the requirement is easier to score, easier to map against criteria and much less likely to be misunderstood.

2. Use the customer’s language and structure

There is a temptation among some bidders to ‘improve’ the structure of a tender response. Usually this means inventing new headings, rearranging content or forcing everything into the bidder’s branded methodology.

Instead, format the response using the same headings and language as the evaluation criteria. If it’s done differently, it may be correct, but it will be more difficult for human and AI tools alike to map the scoring criteria to the answer they are presented with.

That does not mean your response must be robotic; it means it should be easy to navigate and the evaluator should never have to hunt for evidence.

3. Unsupported claims are worthless

‘World-leading’, ‘Best-in-class’, ‘Market-leading’ are phrases that bid teams remain strangely attached to despite years of evidence that they achieve very little.

Human evaluators are already sceptical of such unsupported claims. AI tools are even less sentimental (not sentimental at all, in fact!). You need to back every claim with proof and don’t waste time making extravagant claims (‘world-leading…’) if there is none. It will also be invisible to an AI tool.

If your proposal claims excellence, innovation or reduced risk, then it needs evidence attached to it. That evidence could include:

• Performance metrics
• Customer outcomes
• Audit results
• Delivery statistics
• Independent accreditation
• Measurable improvements
• Named case studies

4. Shorter answers often score better

This is a point many organisations struggle with. There remains a belief for many that longer bids appear more thorough or more authoritative. In reality, long responses often conceal weak answers.

Evaluators are looking for scorable content and if AI tools are summarising, extracting or comparing responses, concise writing becomes even more important. Dense paragraphs and unnecessary filler increase the risk that critical information may get diluted or overlooked.

This does not mean oversimplifying technical responses – defence procurements are often complex and detailed, but it does mean respecting the evaluator’s time and attention.

Clear, focused writing generally outperforms volume.

5. Acknowledging risk builds credibility and confidence

Another useful observation from Sam Cooper’s session was the importance of discussing risk honestly.
Strong bids acknowledge delivery risks and then explain exactly how those risks will be managed, measured and mitigated. This demonstrates credibility which builds confidence in your ability to deliver.

A supplier that identifies realistic risks and presents credible mitigation strategies will usually score more strongly than one pretending nothing could possibly go wrong.

We know this to be true. The Authority feedback we received on a number of sections on a recent £bn+ procurement made the point that part of the reason our writer scored 100% was because of his excellent presentation of risk.

6. Differentiation still matters

If the response doesn’t provide evidence of how your solution is different to and better than your competitors, it can’t be awarded more points. This sounds obvious, but many bids still fail to explain why the proposed solution is materially better than the competitors’ solutions.

You can’t assume your reputation will do the work for you, nor can you assume that the evaluators will ‘join the dots’ on your behalf.

If your solution is faster, safer, more resilient, lower risk, easier to implement or operationally superior, then that advantage must be explicitly stated and evidenced.

The real lesson

The broader lesson is not really about AI; it is that good proposal writing has always depended on clarity, structure, evidence and relevance. AI-assisted evaluation will simply highlight bids that ignore those fundamentals faster.

Training matters more than ever

Proposal-writing capability is strategically important and organisations that train their teams to write clearly, structure responses properly and present evidence effectively will have a measurable advantage over those relying on improvised (and poorly managed AI-assisted) bid writing.

If you liked this, you may find these articles of interest too:
Smarter, Faster, Sharper: How AI Can Drive a Modern Proposal Review Cycle
Why proposal managers can’t ignore AI
Why AI Governance is Business Critical in Bids and Proposals

Article published: May 2026

Back to Articles Page