What is an ITT?

Compliance is the strategy's floor and much of its ceiling. Tender evaluation is rubric-driven and auditable — public buyers must defend their scoring — so responses are scored question by question against published criteria, with word limits enforced and deviations penalized or excluded. Answer the question asked, in its own structure, within its limit, with the evidence type it requests. The buyer's model answer mindset rewards direct, structured responses over persuasive essays; save narrative flourish for where a criterion explicitly scores it.

Mine the weightings. Published criteria weights tell you where marks live: a 10% criterion answered brilliantly cannot rescue a 30% criterion answered thinly. Allocate word count, evidence, and review attention proportional to weight. Method statements — the scored 'how will you deliver' answers — win on specificity: named processes, real metrics from comparable contracts, site-specific detail that proves you read the specification rather than pasted a library answer.

Run the process mechanics like the legal exercise they are. Clarification questions go through the portal within the window (and answers to anyone's questions bind everyone — read them all). Sealed submission deadlines are absolute; portals reject late uploads and no discretion exists to admit them. Where a PQQ/SQ preceded the ITT, consistency matters — evaluators can and do cross-check. Post-award, standstill periods and feedback rights exist; losing tenderers should always take the debrief, because the scoring notes are the cheapest capture intelligence available for the next cycle.