The scores were set
by the evaluation committee.
I chaired it.
ProcureHQ was built by a Government Procurement Manager who spent circa 15 years on the other side of the table. Every part of it exists to show you what an evaluation committee would see in your submission — before you lodge it.
Who built it
Lewis Heard spent circa 15 years as a Procurement Manager with Government. He received and reviewed over 1,000 tender responses as part of procurement evaluations, and chaired more than 500 evaluation committee meetings. The scoring was done by the committee. He ran the room.
BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying & Commercial Management, First Class · Master of Construction Law · Recipient of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors High Achievement Award
You never see the scoresheet
A government evaluation committee scores your submission against published criteria, moderates those scores in a room you are not in, and reaches a consensus that is never divulged to you. You are told you were unsuccessful. You are rarely told why, and never in the detail that would let you fix it.
So contractors tender the same way for years without ever learning what the panel actually saw. That gap is the reason ProcureHQ exists.
A response you believe is complete.
Scores it, moderates it, records the reasons.
A result. Not the reasons.
What ProcureHQ actually produces
Two documents, from one workflow. The Smart Submission Blueprint tells you what a high-scoring response to your tender needs to contain. The Digital Evaluation Committee then scores what you wrote and tells you exactly where the marks are going. Every excerpt below is taken from a fictionalised sample.
One criterion, both engines
This is Criterion 3 of a fictionalised marine civil tender, seen twice: first as the Smart Blueprint told the tenderer to build it, then as the committee scored what they actually submitted.
D.2 Proposed methodology
- D.2.1 Site establishment and access
- D.2.2 Working over water — plant, platforms and fall control
- D.2.3 Tidal and weather working windows
- D.2.4 Removal of existing balustrade
- D.2.5 Installation sequence for new balustrade
- D.2.6 Managing works alongside public access
- D.2.7 Inspection, hold-points and witness-points
- D.2.8 Commissioning, handover and defects liability
Criterion 3 — Methodology and Tender Program
Potential after improvements: 8.4
- Over-water working lacks detail
- No tender program or bar chart
- Tidal and weather windows not addressed
- Removal sequencing is absent
The Smart Blueprint named all four of those items before the tenderer wrote a word.
Inside a Tender Evaluation Report
Your scores, and what they could be
Confidence drivers and confidence killers
- Clear contractual position with minimal proposed amendments
- Good project organisation structure and relevant personnel
- Strong awareness of public-interface and environmental risks
- Insufficient methodology detail for over-water and tidal working
- Tender program is absent or incomplete
- Comparable projects lack referee contact information
Evidence, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Status | Key gap | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Partial | Referee contacts missing | 60% |
| 2 | Partial | CV details incomplete | 70% |
| 3 | Weak | Program and sequencing missing | 50% |
| 4 | Partial | Certificates not attached | 65% |
| 5 | Strong | One conditional clause | 85% |
The Recovery Plan
| Improvement | Benefit | EFFORT |
|---|---|---|
| Include three comparable projects with referee details | High | Low |
| Add a tender program with holidays and dependencies | High | Medium |
| Provide a detailed over-water working methodology | High | Medium |
And the committee’s own view of the room:
“The committee would view this as a response with solid contractual intent and personnel but insufficient technical depth. The main moderation discussion would centre on whether the methodology can be executed safely given the absence of over-water and tidal detail. If the tenderer submits the recommended improvements, the response would move from mid-field to competitive.”
See the full report
The complete fictionalised Tender Evaluation Report, exactly as the platform produces it. No commitment, no card.
Fictionalised sample. All company names, project references, scores and personnel are invented for illustration.
What the outputs are built on
ProcureHQ runs on four internal libraries. Nothing in them is drawn from another customer’s work.
Replicates how experienced government evaluation panels assess submissions.
Holds circa 150 recurring Decision Signals, common strengths and weaknesses by criterion, evaluation methodology, scoring logic and panel guidance. Agency-neutral.
Used by: Digital Evaluation Committee · Tender Evaluation Report · Committee Findings · Recovery Plan
Determines what a high-scoring response should contain.
Holds the characteristics of a high-scoring response, section and content guidance, and best-practice response technique.
Used by: Smart Blueprint
Provides the response structures the Smart Blueprint is built from.
Holds response structures, tables, schedules, methodologies, management plans, risk registers, CV structures, quality plans and compliance matrices.
Used by: Smart Blueprint
Extracts and organises the information in your tender.
Holds the evaluation criteria, assessment requirements, technical documents, specifications, scope and contract requirements for your specific procurement.
Used by: Smart Blueprint · Digital Evaluation Committee
If a recommendation cannot be traced back to your tender documents, your response, and these libraries, it is suppressed. It is never shown to you.
What evaluators actually notice
Circa 150 recurring Decision Signals sit inside the Evaluation Intelligence Library. Three of them, and what they produced in the sample report.
Comparable Project Experience
Demonstrates successful delivery of projects with comparable scope, scale and complexity.
Evaluation panels consistently place greater confidence in contractors who can demonstrate successful delivery of genuinely comparable projects. Generic experience rarely scores as strongly as directly relevant evidence.
ProcureHQ evaluates the strength of your comparable project evidence, identifies gaps that are likely to reduce your score, and recommends what additional examples or evidence would strengthen your response before submission.
“Only one project is substantiated. Referee contact details are missing.” — Criterion 1, scored 5.1/10
Project-Specific Methodology
Demonstrates a clear understanding of how this specific project will be delivered.
High-scoring submissions describe project methodology, sequencing, risks, interfaces and milestones in a way that reflects the published requirements. Generic methodologies copied from previous tenders are consistently viewed less favourably.
ProcureHQ assesses whether your methodology aligns with the published evaluation criteria and assessment requirements, highlights where project-specific detail is missing, and identifies the areas most likely to reduce your evaluation score.
“Over-water working lacks detail. Tidal and weather windows not addressed.” — Criterion 3, scored 4.6/10
Evidence Over Claims
Every capability claim is supported by verifiable evidence.
Strong submissions support capability claims with reference projects, qualifications, certifications and measurable outcomes. Unsupported assertions are significantly less persuasive during evaluation.
ProcureHQ identifies unsupported claims throughout your submission, estimates their impact on your evaluation score, and recommends the evidence needed to strengthen each criterion before it is assessed.
“QMS, EMS and WHSMS are named, but certification evidence is not attached.” — Criterion 4, scored 4.5/10
How it works
Upload your tender documents
The RFT, the scope, the specifications and drawings.
Confirm your evaluation criteria
ProcureHQ extracts the criteria and shows you every one. You confirm or correct them before anything is generated.
Build or upload your response
Generate your Smart Blueprint, or upload the response you have already written.
Evaluate
The Digital Evaluation Committee scores your response against the confirmed criteria and assessment requirements.
Improve and re-evaluate
Work the Recovery Plan, then score it again. Repeat until you are ready to lodge.
Step 2 is a checkpoint, not a formality. No extraction is perfect, so nothing is generated or scored until you have confirmed the criteria yourself.
What ProcureHQ does not do
A platform that sells confidence should be specific about its limits. These are ours.
We do not write your response.
The Smart Blueprint gives you the structure, the guidance and the evidence expected under each heading. The words are yours. ProcureHQ is not an AI writing platform.
We do not guarantee an outcome.
No score, shortlisting or contract award is promised or implied. ProcureHQ improves how your submission reads to an evaluation committee. It cannot decide one.
We are not a government agency, and we are not affiliated with one.
Every evaluation ProcureHQ produces is a simulation. No procurement authority has reviewed, endorsed or participated in it.
We do not run a line-by-line compliance check.
Your response is scored against the published evaluation criteria and the assessment requirements beneath them, read in the context of your tender's scope, specifications and technical documents. What we do not do is verify your response clause by clause against every technical requirement — that is a compliance review, and a different exercise.
We do not share your work.
Your tender documents and your response stay yours. They are isolated to your organisation, never shared with other customers, and never used to train AI.
We are not a bid writer, and we do not review after award.
ProcureHQ works in the window between the tender being released and your submission being lodged. That is the only window in which anything can still be changed.
Why the outputs hold up
Structured and repeatable
The same evaluation methodology is applied to every submission, every run. Nothing is improvised per customer.
Versioned and recorded
Every evaluation is stamped with the engine and methodology version that produced it, and retained internally.
Traced to a source
Recommendations are drawn from your documents and our libraries. Anything that cannot be traced is suppressed rather than shown.
Reviewed before release
Guidance in the libraries is reviewed and approved by a person with evaluation experience before it can reach a customer.
Your documents stay yours
Your tender documents and your response remain your intellectual property. They are isolated to your organisation, never shared with other customers, and never used to train AI. The platform is designed to preserve the confidentiality of your response and your evaluation outputs.
Start without spending anything
Your first tender is free. Not a trial, not a preview — the complete Smart Submission Blueprint and the full Tender Evaluation Report, once. If you then buy a Single Evaluation and it is not what you expected, there is a 14-day full refund.
14-day refund guarantee on Single Evaluation. See Digital Product Terms §5.5A.
Stop finding out after you have lost.
See how a government evaluation committee would score your submission, while there is still time to change it.