How to Request a Bid Debriefing

Losing bidders in public procurement have access to something almost unheard of in commercial sales: a formal explanation of how their proposal was evaluated, criterion by criterion, from the people who scored it.

Most suppliers never ask.

That is expensive, because the weaknesses that cost you one bid usually recur across the next several. A supplier who consistently loses on the same rated criterion and never finds out will keep losing on it. One who asks after every loss builds a picture of exactly where their proposals fall short, which is the difference between bidding more and bidding better.

Debriefings are also, unusually, low-stakes. You have already lost. There is nothing further to protect.

Debriefings are normally available on request to bidders who participated in a competition, within a period stated in the solicitation or in the notice of award. That window is defined and is enforced, so the request should go out promptly rather than when you get round to it.

**Find the stated process first.** The solicitation usually names the contracting authority and specifies how to request a debriefing. Follow that route rather than approaching the technical staff you dealt with during delivery of other work.

**Request in writing.** It creates a record of the date, which matters where a time limit applies, and it lets you set out what you want to cover.

**Ask for specifics in the request itself.** A generic request produces a generic session. Naming the criteria you want to understand lets the contracting authority prepare, and materially improves what you get.

]

Understanding the boundaries prevents both disappointment and a session that goes nowhere.

**What you can generally expect:** how your bid scored against each published criterion, where it met or fell short of the standard, and factual information about the process — how many bids were received, and typically the winning bidder and value, which are usually public in any event.

**What you generally cannot expect:** the contents of competitors' proposals, a ranked list of all bidders' scores, or a reconsideration of the decision. A debriefing explains your own evaluation. It is not a review mechanism.

That last distinction matters for how you conduct yourself. A debriefing approached as an appeal tends to become defensive on both sides and produces little. Approached as research into your own performance, it usually produces a great deal.

]

The quality of a debriefing depends heavily on what you ask. Open questions about how you did produce polite generalities. Specific questions about scoring produce actionable detail.

**On scoring:** "For the methodology criterion, what would a response scoring at the top of the range have included that ours did not?" This is the single most valuable question available, and it is usually answered.

**On evidence:** "Were there requirements where you could not locate our response, or where the evidence we provided was not sufficient?" This surfaces structural problems — answers buried in appendices, or claims made without support — that authors never see in their own work.

**On comprehension:** "Were there parts of our proposal that were unclear or that you had to interpret?" Anything an evaluator had to interpret scored lower than it could have.

**On fit:** "Was there anything in our submission that suggested we had misunderstood the requirement?" Occasionally the answer reveals that you priced and planned against a scope the buyer never asked for.

**On future opportunity:** "Are there capabilities or credentials that would have strengthened this bid and would be relevant to similar requirements?" This converts a post-mortem into a development plan.

• ✓Ask what a top-scoring answer would have contained, per weak criterion
• ✓Ask whether any response could not be located or was insufficiently evidenced
• ✓Ask what required interpretation
• ✓Ask whether anything suggested a misreading of the requirement
• ✓Ask what credentials would strengthen future bids
• ✓Take notes; do not rely on memory
• ✓Thank them — the same team will evaluate your next bid[/Checklist

]

A debriefing that produces notes nobody reads again has cost you an hour and returned nothing. The value is in what changes.

**Record it in a form you will actually revisit.** A simple running log of solicitation, criteria scored weakly, and the specific reason given. After four or five entries the pattern is usually unmistakable.

**Separate fixable from structural.** A poorly evidenced methodology is fixable this quarter. Absent past performance in a specific domain, or a bonding limit below the contract size, is structural — it changes which opportunities you should be screening in, not how you write.

**Fix the recurring one first.** Most suppliers have a single dominant weakness. Addressing it moves more bids than incremental improvement everywhere.

**Feed it back into screening.** If debriefings repeatedly show you scoring poorly on past performance for a category of work, that is evidence about which competitions are winnable — not just about how to write better.

]

A debriefing is the only direct account you will get of how your proposal was actually read and scored, and it is available on request within a defined period after award. Request one after every loss, in writing, promptly, naming the criteria you want to understand. Expect an explanation of your own evaluation, not access to competitors' bids or a reconsideration of the decision — and approach it as research rather than appeal. Ask what a top-scoring answer would have contained, whether your evidence was locatable and sufficient, and what required interpretation. Then log the answers, look for the recurring weakness across several debriefings, and fix that one first. The suppliers who improve fastest in public procurement are not the ones who bid most. They are the ones who find out why they lost.