How assessors score: translating evaluation criteria into bid management actions

Assessors score what they can see, not what you meant. This guide turns common evaluation criteria into practical bid management actions, with evidence templates, checklists and a mini case.

Great ideas only win when assessors can score them confidently. This article explains how public and research funders typically mark proposals, then translates each criterion into clear bid management tasks, proofs and reviewer-friendly structure.

The five criteria, decoded

Most schemes use some variation of these headings. Use them to structure your plan, not just your writing.

1. Relevance
   Fit to scope, needs and objectives of the call.
2. Impact
   Benefits to users and society, market pathway, adoption and dissemination.
3. Implementation
   Credible plan, roles, milestones, governance and delivery risk control.
4. Value for money
   Proportional costs, clear assumptions, results per pound.
5. Risk
   Specific technical, delivery and commercial risks with owned mitigations.

What “good” looks like: actions per criterion

1) Relevance → Actions

• Line-by-line scope map. Create a two-column table: left = call text lines, right = where your answer addresses them.
• Outcome tree. Break the call’s expected outcomes into 6–10 measurable results and assign an owner for each.
• Beneficiary statements. One sentence per beneficiary explaining pain, baseline and improvement.

Proofs that score

• Extracts of the call text with your alignment annotations.
• Short problem statements with baseline data or citations.
• Letters from end users referencing the same outcomes and measures.

2) Impact → Actions

• Logic model. Inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impacts, with KPIs and data sources.
• Adoption route. Name the decision makers, procurement route, pilots and standards you will meet.
• Exploitation plan. Partner-level tables: who will sell or deploy, to whom, at what price, and when.

Proofs that score

• Market sizing with method, not just totals.
• End-user letters stating access, KPIs and adoption intent.
• Simple revenue or cost-saving model with 3–4 tested assumptions.

3) Implementation → Actions

• Outcome-led work packages. Deliverables, acceptance criteria and entrance tests per task.
• Dependency map. What blocks what, with fallback options.
• Governance cadence. Weekly stand-ups, monthly technical boards and quarterly steering, each with decisions recorded.

Proofs that score

• A one-page Gantt linked to milestones and evidence drops.
• RACI matrix naming owners and reviewers.
• Change-control form template with time and cost impact fields.

4) Value for money → Actions

• Budget to milestones. Costs tied to deliverables, not departments.
• Assumptions log. The five assumptions that drive cost and timeline, each with a source and sensitivity.
• Benchmark checks. Subcontractor quotes and market-rate notes.

Proofs that score

• Milestone-based budget table with work-package references.
• Two alternative options considered and rejected, with reasons.
• Sensitivity showing effect of a 10 percent slip or price rise.

5) Risk → Actions

• Real risks, early warnings. Signals you will watch, not generic text.
• Owned mitigations. Named owner, date and trigger for each action.
• Go or kill gates. Criteria for pivoting to protect public money.

Proofs that score

• Risk register with probability, impact and indicators.
• Backup supplier or site letters.
• Security, ethics or data management plans where relevant.

Assessor-friendly structure for every answer

• Lead with the benefit. One or two sentences that restate the question and show the outcome.
• Explain how. The plan, resources and governance in brief.
• Show proof. Data points, quotes, letters or figures.
• Close with fit. One line tying back to the call’s outcomes.

Evidence pack you can assemble this week

• Scope map with call-text cross-references.
• Logic model and exploitation plan with partner-level tables.
• Outcome-led work plan with acceptance criteria.
• Budget-to-milestones sheet and assumptions log.
• Risk register with early warnings, owners and dates.
• Letter scripts for end users and validators.

Quick table: criterion → evidence → common pitfall

Mini case example

A UK robotics SME targeted a safety-critical pilot. The team built a scope map that quoted the call text line by line, then created an outcome tree with five owners, including the end-user warehouse operator. The work plan used acceptance thresholds for each trial. Value for money was shown through a milestone budget and two tested alternatives. Letters from the operator named the test site, success KPIs and adoption steps. The application scored strongly on relevance, implementation and impact because the narrative, plan and proofs matched the marking scheme.

Common pitfalls and fixes

• Pitfall: Dense paragraphs without signposting.
  Fix: Use informative subheads and numbered lists with short sentences.
• Pitfall: Over-ambitious timelines.
  Fix: Add buffer around integration and certification. Show a sensitivity.
• Pitfall: Generic letters of support.
  Fix: Provide a script that includes access, KPIs and adoption intent.
• Pitfall: Budget not tied to outcomes.
  Fix: Rebuild costs by milestone and deliverable, not by team.

10-point bid management checklist before submission

1. Scope map completed and embedded in answers.
2. Logic model attached with KPIs and data sources.
3. Outcome-led work plan with acceptance criteria.
4. RACI and governance cadence visible.
5. Milestone budget reconciles to finance form.
6. Assumptions log and two alternatives considered.
7. Risk register with early warnings and owners.
8. At least two end-user letters with access and KPIs.
9. Portal compliance checks: limits, attachments, declarations, links.
10. Independent Red Team review and fix-forward log.

FAQs

1) Do all funders use the same criteria
Names vary, but most use relevance, impact, implementation, value for money and risk, in some form.

2) How long should each answer be
Use the space to answer, show how and prove it. Short, evidence-rich sections score better than long narratives.

3) What counts as good value for money
Costs tied to milestones, clear assumptions, benchmarked inputs and a credible sensitivity.

4) How many risks should we include
Enough to be honest and useful. Five to eight material risks with early warnings and owners is a good range.

5) Should we include alternatives
Yes. Showing options you considered and rejected helps assessors trust your choices.