Straight answers.

Why not just run it through ChatGPT yourself?

Generic models produce fluent text quickly. They don't know which of your past projects actually match this buyer's wording and weightings. They don't flag where your evidence is thin against a heavily-weighted criterion and needs a different angle rather than padding. And nobody is accountable for the result.

And it won't sound like you. Generic AI has a voice of its own, and evaluators, who read hundreds of submissions, have learned to smell it. We build a voice reference from your company's own writing and measure every draft against it, so what goes out reads as you on your best day, not as a chatbot.

What closes those gaps here: the rubric is mapped before drafting starts, every claim is tagged to its source, every draft is scored against your own voice, and a named person reviews the result against both the scoring criteria and what your business can actually deliver. That's the difference between a document that reads well and one that scores.

We're plain about how the work gets made: drafting is AI-assisted, evidence-tagged, and human-reviewed. That's the method, on the tin.

Who signs what

A named person reviews and signs off every draft before it reaches you: Dan Hesketh, Founder. You then review it and submit it under your own name, as your business's own submission.

The tender asks me to declare whether AI was used. What do I say?

Declare it. Say what is true: the response was drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by a named person who signs it off, working from your own evidence. We give you the exact wording to disclose this accurately, matched to how the specific question is framed. Buyers increasingly ask, and what they penalise is concealment, not disclosed and controlled use. Current government guidance does not score you down for disclosed AI use, though we cannot promise how every individual evaluator will react. A clear, honest declaration is the safer choice.

This is how we describe the work, not legal advice. If a notice sets out a specific compliance requirement, meeting it is yours to confirm.

Some firms charge less for a smaller bid. Why don't you?

Some do, genuinely, and we're not going to pretend otherwise. A few firms we checked publish fixed fees from around £450 up to about £2,000 for a small submission, below where our own tender band starts at £2,000.

Worth being precise about what that number buys, because it doesn't tell you on its own. Our own smaller option, a bid review rather than a full draft, sits in a similar £950-£2,500 range for a different reason: it's a review of evidence you've already gathered, mapped against the rubric with the gaps flagged, not a submission written from scratch. If a cheaper quote elsewhere is for a full draft and ours at that price is a review, the two aren't the same job, so check what's actually included before deciding on price alone.

Three questions worth putting to any bid-writing firm, us included: do they map your evidence against the buyer's published scoring criteria before a word is written, or start from a template? Do they tag which claims in the bid are backed by real evidence and which are thin? And who signs their name to the final draft, a named person you can hold to it, or just "the team"?

We answer yes to all three, and you don't have to take our word for it. Send us the tender and we'll show you the actual rubric-mapped read on your own evidence, free, before you pay anything. That's the thing to judge us on, not the number by itself.

Can you show client references?

Our first reference will be our first client. Until then, judge us on the free Evidence Snapshot.

See your own evidence mapped

See what an evaluator would find in your own evidence: get your free Evidence Snapshot.