Tender responses and funding applications have plenty in common but are fundamentally different. If you treat them the same, you can weaken an otherwise strong submission. I’ve written tenders and funding applications for well over a decade, and would define the difference like this:
For a tender, you typically have to persuade a buyer that you can deliver something the buyer has already decided it wants. For a funding application, you have to persuade the funding body that your project deserves investment.
This distinction should influence the way you write.
A tender starts with the buyer’s requirements
In a competitive tender, the buyer knows – or should know - what it wants. The Invitation to Tender and, in particular, the service specification will typically define the type of service required, the target population, required outcomes, staffing expectations, performance indicators, and contractual requirements.
Your job isn’t to redesign the requirement. It is to demonstrate convincingly that your organisation understands it and can deliver it. You need to read all the documentation carefully, understand the evaluation criteria, and ensure you answer each component of every question.
If the question asks how you will mobilise a new supported-housing service, for example, you’ll need specifics: your timetable, recruitment, TUPE arrangements, property readiness, governance, risk management and who will be accountable.
Tender writing is fundamentally evaluator-focused. You need to make it easy for the evaluator to find the evidence they need to award marks.
A funding application starts with the case for investment
Let’s say you’ve developed a new healthcare technology and are trying to obtain funding to market test it. The funder, say SBRI Healthcare, will evaluate your proposal alongside potentially hundreds of others. You therefore have an additional job: you need to make the case for the idea itself, and convince the funder that you have a coherent, deliverable project that has a realistic chance of success.
What problem are you solving? How significant is it? Who experiences it? Why aren’t existing approaches good enough? What’s innovative about your solution? Is there evidence that it could work? Can your team deliver it? What will the funding enable you to do? And what happens afterwards?
A strong application takes the assessor on a journey from the problem to how you will address it more effectively than current practice, the evidence for your claims, what you will do, who will do it, and the impact an investment could help you achieve.
Evidence works differently too
Both tenders and funding applications need evidence, but often for different purposes.
In a tender, evidence frequently demonstrates delivery capability.
You might show that a similar service achieved particular outcomes, that your mobilisation approach has worked elsewhere, or that your workforce model has delivered good retention. The implied message is: We’ve done this successfully before, so you can have confidence that we’ll do it successfully for you.
In an innovation funding application, if everything has already been developed, tested and proven, it may not be particularly innovative.
Instead, evidence might establish the scale of the problem, support the scientific or technological rationale, demonstrate early feasibility, validate demand or justify why further development is worthwhile. The argument becomes: We know enough to justify investing in finding out more.
Managing risk
Tender evaluators want confidence. They need to believe you can mobilise and deliver the contract safely and reliably. You therefore need to identify risks while demonstrating credible controls and mitigations.
Innovation funders also expect risks, but for a different reason. Genuine innovation involves uncertainty. An application that suggests there are no technical, clinical, commercial or implementation risks can sound less credible.
The aim isn’t to pretend uncertainty doesn’t exist. It is to demonstrate that you understand it and have a sensible plan for managing and learning from it.
Mind your language
One mistake I’ve seen in tenders and funding applications is the use of language that is meant to sound impressive but doesn’t. Calling something “ground-breaking”, “transformational”, “unique” or “world-leading” doesn’t make it so, and such clichés do nothing to make your bid stand out.
In a tender, explain precisely how your approach will improve delivery or outcomes.
In a funding application, explain what is genuinely new, how it differs from existing alternatives and what evidence supports its potential.
Specificity and detail are more persuasive than superlatives.
Some rules apply to both
Despite these differences, the best tenders and funding applications share important characteristics.
They answer all elements of the question asked. They understand their audience. They use evidence rather than unsupported assertions. They don’t simply promise; they explain. They respect word limits. And they make life easy for the assessors.
Ask yourself this: What does the buyer or funder need to think and believe once they have read my application?
For a tender, the answer is often: these people can deliver what we need.
For a funding application, it may be: this is an idea worth investing in.