Lost the tender. Now what?

The loss review questions that can actually change your next result

It’s a hard update to receive – you didn’t win. Don’t miss out on squeezing some value from the debrief. The right questions turn a “thanks for participating” call into a playbook for your next score uplift.

We’ve created this loss review guide to help clients navigate that hard discussion after losing a tender.

So, what exactly should I expect from a loss review

This session is your chance to hear firsthand why you didn’t win. Evaluators are bound by complex probity rules in government and regulated industry tenders but it doesn’t mean they can’t give you direct feedback on how you scored.

The goal of the session is for you to extract structured, actionable insight without burning goodwill or breaching probity.

This 6 section guide is designed to help you drill down to the detail when it comes to talking to evaluators if you manage to get a loss review session. You won’t get through this whole playbook in your short session (often 30 minutes), but it gives you a framework to think about what you need to know.

If you get only generic statements, follow up with targeted, rubric-aligned questions by email. Keep it respectful and specific.

Ground rules before you ask anything
  1. Be easy to help. Make your questions clear and direct (perhaps even emailing or pasting into the chat at the start of the call).
  2. Respect probity. You’re seeking how they scored you against criteria – not competitor intel.    
  3. Anchor to the rubric. Ask against the exact criteria, weightings, and scoring definitions in the RFT.    
  4. Ask for examples, not opinions. “What language or evidence would have lifted us one band?”

Section 1 - Scoring anatomy (map your gaps)

  1. Against each weighted criterion, what band did we land in (e.g., Acceptable/Good/Very Good) and why?
  2. Where did we lose the most points relative to the winner – methodology, risk, governance, benefits, or commercial/cost?
  3. If we improved one criterion to change the award outcome, which would it be?
  4. Were there any “non-scoring” issues that influenced confidence (e.g., formatting/structure, unclear assumptions, missing cross-references)?

Why this matters Panels must score against published criteria and record reasons. Your aim is to replicate their logic in your next response.

Section 2 - Evidence density (proof beats prose)

  1. Where were our claims assertion-heavy versus evidenced? Which key claims lacked the required proof points to make them credible?
  2. What evidence type would have been most persuasive for those claims (e.g., before/after metrics, independent references, certifications, audit extracts)?
  3. Did our case studies directly reflect the scope and complexity of this requirement? If not, what extra information would have been helpful?

Why this matters Evaluators award full points when the answer makes it easy to justify the score. Evidence is the justification.

Section 3 - Readability (make scoring easy)

  1. Could assessors quickly find “the answer” for each sub-criterion without hunting through annexes?
  2. Did our headings and language mirror the scoring rubric? Where did alignment break?
  3. Were visuals (process flows, RACIs, risk heatmaps, governance calendars) clear enough to support scoring?

Why this matters
Panels can only score what they can find and defend. Structure is a scoring tool, not a design choice.

Section 4 - Risk, governance, delivery confidence

  1. Did we adequately cover our approach to risk? Did we demonstrate a clear understanding of the risk profile of this engagement? Did we provide satisfactory mitigation strategies for these?
  2. Did our governance approach match your expectations? What would have increased confidence? 

Why this matters
Delivery confidence is a frequent tie-breaker. Mature risk and governance uplift that score.

Section 5 - Benefits and value for money

  1. Did we clearly convey how we were able to deliver value for money?
  2. Were benefits relevant to your context and requirements? What was missing or optimistic?
  3. On value-for-money, did our whole-of-life (TCO) narrative help you compare bids beyond upfront price?

Why this matters
Whole-of-life value and measurable benefits are core to value-for-money reasoning.

Section 6 - Commercial clarity

  1. Which assumptions or exclusions created uncertainty or risk transfer you discounted us for?

  2. Was pricing structure easy to evaluate against your model? Where did complexity reduce confidence?

  3. If pricing was competitive, what non-price change would most have improved our position? If pricing wasn’t competitive, where could value have justified our proposal?

Why this matters
Ambiguity is scored as risk. Clear commercials remove friction and lift confidence.

Squeezing the goodness out of your next loss review

While it’s not much fun to dwell on a negative situation, you can take a lot from a loss review by turning your debrief notes into an uplift plan. This short exercise creates a reusable artefact that can be picked up by the next person in your organisation and make a valuable improvement to your bidding posture. 

What to expect (and what not to)

Debriefs in Australia are bound by probity. Expect clarity on your submission against the rubric, not competitor detail.

Supporting your bid journey

Want a one-page, print-ready debrief question sheet in Tendup format? Book in a 30 minute obligation-free consult with us and we’ll provide a loss review template for your team to use. And if you would like some guidance on how to deliver winning bids, talk to us about a bid audit – we can help get your next bid on track.

Scroll to Top