One of the most fundamental mistakes bidders make when answering a call for Expressions of Interest or Requests for Proposal, is submitting a response that’s full of unsubstantiated claims.

Too often, a statement is made in an EOI or RFP response that offers no substantiation, no demonstration of its accuracy.

It appears the evaluation committee is simply expected to accept the claim at face value. Yet the evaluators would not be doing their job if they do . . . and you, as bidder, haven’t done your job if you expect them to.

Further, how can an evaluator award you selection criteria-related points when you answer a question with an empty, unproven claim?

Respondents and their writers should ask these questions as they plan and write their answers:

• What is the proof that this is true / fact?

Offer adequate and genuine substantiation – whether of a “third party” nature or by providing some form of provable quantification.

Table a statistic, for example, and state the source (which should be a reputable body recognised either by your industry, their industry, or the business sector at large).

• What is the credibility of this information?

Many bidders include lightly edited, thinly-disguised versions of the same material they include in their marketing material or on their websites.

The credibility of this information is generally nil, since it is based on opinion-based claims the bidder is making about its own service or product.

To be authoritative, you must be able to show that any opinion is, in some form, supported by a credible third party e.g. by accreditation.

• Why is it relevant / critical to the client / customer organisation?

Don’t just state facts or table data and leave it to the evaluation committee to determine their relevance.

Explain why, in the context of this bid, you consider that fact or datum important.

In that way, you strengthen the support those inclusions loan to your proposition. If, on the other hand, you neglect to do this, you will have potentially wasted that opportunity. Worse still, the evaluator may misinterpret the connection you intended him or her to make.

• With regard to the answer generated by the above question, what is the proof point of this high-relevance criticality?

A savvy bidder will offer a double layer of substantiation. First, it will offer proof of a claim, and/or demonstrate that the claim is proven or provable.

Then, after drawing the relevance of that information to the client organisation’s specific needs or challenges, the bidder will go on to demonstrate and/or quantify the benefits that will result from the evaluator making a decision in the bidder’s favour, based on this information.

In summary, table proof that your claim is true (not just your opinion); provide some authoritative indicator of third-party concurrence; make it relevant to the client and, in turn, prove this relevance. Finally, if possible, quantify the benefits  to be gained by taking the action the claim suggests should be taken.