The case for human-centred bids (a.k.a. designing for tired evaluators)
During my Masters, I wrote papers and read approximately one million articles on human-centred design. In infrastructure, it’s everywhere. Sometimes called human factors, sometimes customer experience, it’s all the same idea: design for the user. Understand what they need, why they need it, and make it easy. And most importanty… have some empathy.
It also ties beautifully into Social Licence, but that’s a blog for another day.
On a bid, I’m slightly jaded, half pleading with the client for reasonable page limits, and keeping my eyelids open with metaphorical toothpicks in the final weeks. I’m drawing last minute diagrams (though in my fairy world, i asked for them all by Silver), googling what “pampliset” means and wondering why someone would even use that word, editing said word and 400,000 other words, fixing formatting crimes (a section break every time you need a new page?!), and triple-checking compliance matrices. All this in pursuit of one thing: a high score.
Then I remember: someone has to read this. Oy vay!
Worse, they have to read ours (oh god, did we end up changing “pampliset”?), and one or two other submissions from competing teams. The thought alone is exhausting. We talk about building goodwill with communities and developing social licence. Can we create the same goodwill with evaluators?
I think yes.
Compliance. Price. Program. The holy trinity??
When you start in bid world, you’re taught three things that’ll win you the bid:
Compliance first (so you don’t get kicked out before getting to the other two)
Price
Program.
… and apparently that’s all that matters. (Cue eye roll.)
Lately, procurement has been changing. Believe it or not, other things are becoming just as important like social value, legacy, being good neighbours, working well with others, etc.
It’s not just faster and cheaper. It’s also better for planet and better for people.
But here’s the uncomfortable reality: If your “better” solution is buried inside bundles of text that require a dictionary or a Duolingo lesson to decipher, will the evaluator ever see it?
Probably not.
So let’s talk about human-centred bids.
Tired evaluators won’t read. They will scan.
I have friends who’ve been evaluators on projects I’ve worked on. Their process:
Scan
Stop where something is clear, interesting or bold
Skip anything written like corporate wallpaper.
Human-centred bids use:
Clear headings that signpost content (“How we manage interface risks”, not “Delivering integrated outcomes”)
Short paragraphs
Graphics and pull-outs for key stats, value drivers and differentiators
Diagrams instead of long-winded process essays.
This isn’t aesthetics or a Behance portfolio. It’s accessibility.
Skip the jargon and bid poetry.
Integration. Synergy. Activtation. Collaboration. Holistic. Uplift. Value add. Blah blah blah. Eye roll intensifies.
Human centred submissions don’t try to sound clever. They try to communicate.
Clarity > jargon
Evidence > superlatives
Plain english > word salad.
My test? If my friend, who couldn’t care less about my project, can skim the response and pick up the right key messages, ding ding ding!! we are winning!
Good design and layout is not about ‘making it pretty’. It’s about making it readable
If a page is one column of text, tiny margins, and Arial Narrow 9pt, I immediately lose the will to live. Ugh. who wants to read that?
Small changes = massive impact:
Multi-column layouts to reduce eye fatigue (and can help save space)
Fonts that humans with normal and low vision can actually read
Consistent styling
Call-outs for proof points
Infographics to replace slabs of text
Colour used to organise, not decorate
Accessibility and alt-text (yes, real people need these).
Good design lowers cognitive load.
Lower cognitive load = happier evaluator.
Happier evaluator = better retention of your key messages.
Side note: don’t ever ask me to make somethng look pretty or you’ll get more than an eye roll from me.
Human-centred bids feel confident, not desperate.
There is a big difference between:
“Please pick us, we’re begging”
and
“We’ve got this handled.”
Confident bids:
Know what problem they’re solving
Know who benefits and who might not (and what they’ll do about it)
Own their strengths, but don’t sound arrogant
Acknowledge their weaknesses and what they learned
Address risks instead of hiding them
Do not hide behind 200 pages of filler.
You don’t need every sentence to matter. You need every idea to matter.
It’s not about being shorter or lazy…it’s about being clearer.
Human-centred submissions aren’t light on content. They’re structured to avoid pain. The don’t force evaluators to guess what your messages are or have go searching for the actual answer.
Break long answers into clear, scannable chunks:
What we will do
How we will do it
Why it works
Proof we’ve done it before
You can still be comprehensive and be kind to evaluators. Kindness, weirdly enough, can be a competitive advantage.
The upshot
Human-centred submissions feel honest, not like a legal or technical manual soaked in buzzwords. They feel like there are real people actually thinking about things. They feel real and trustworthy. And yes, trust gets you points.
Shameless selling point
I do bids.
Especially the human-centred ones that don’t put evaluators into a coma.
Call me.
If all you care about is price and program, I’ve got a lovely list of other people who will happily churn out 400 pages of beige compliance for you.
