25 years in the evaluation processes. I identify where a proposal may be losing points from the first few pages. A technically strong solution doesn't guarantee a high score. It depends on how proposals are likely to be read, perceived, and scored. Send me your draft. I'll show you where you may be leaving points on the table.
You know what you can deliver. The problem: evaluators don't see it the way you do. And what they see determines the score.
Evaluators bring risk filters shaped by past failures. What scores high resolves that anxiety. Checking boxes doesn't.
Dense content that requires interpretation scores lower in consensus. Four evaluators reading it independently each read it differently, and consensus defaults to the lowest defensible score.
Post-evaluation feedback is constrained. You hear “didn't meet the threshold.” You never hear “your governance section made us nervous about everything after it.” The real reasons often stay in the evaluation room.
Here's what's actually happening inside the evaluation room.
Most teams describe governance as org charts. Evaluators look for evidence it has been tested under pressure. If it reads as aspirational, the doubt carries into every section that follows.
Evaluators ask: “Can I defend this selection?” A technically impressive demo that introduces uncertainty loses to a solid one that feels defensible.
They're not. Evaluators look for quantifiable anchors: numbers, timelines, named roles. Without anchors, each evaluator interprets differently, and consensus defaults to the lowest defensible score.
Overly optimistic timelines, vague resource commitments, generic contingency language. These read as “hasn't done this at this scale.” A committee that senses risk doesn't score it as ambitious. It scores it as unproven.
Evaluators look for realistic planning: named dependencies, knowledge of current-state, contingencies, acknowledgment of unknowns. Overconfidence scores as inexperience.
Evaluators distinguish structural commitment from compliance decoration. Listing a subcontractor is not a strategy. A superficial section doesn't just score poorly. It casts doubt on the entire proposal.
Send me your draft. I assess how proposals are likely to be read and interpreted against evaluation criteria. You get back exactly where points are being left, what to change, and why. Criterion-by-criterion. No fluff.
Deliverables
Complementary engagements
Before you write, understand how the evaluation is structured. I decode the solicitation architecture: what the scoring logic is designed to measure, where evaluator interpretation has the most latitude, and where the highest-value points sit. Available standalone or as a precursor to a scoring assessment.
For procurements with presentations, demos, or interviews. I prepare teams for how evaluators observe, not just what they ask. Goal: defensible selection confidence, not technical admiration.
After results are in, I extract patterns from debriefs, scoring, and outcomes. Institutional knowledge that improves your next bid, not just this one.
I don't need to be involved in every step. I intervene where the score is determined.
I'm Suzy Bouchard. For more than 25 years, I've worked at the heart of evaluation processes for complex competitive procurements, public and private sector. I've contributed to solicitation design, evaluation criteria, and participated in complex evaluation processes. I understand how criteria are interpreted through direct experience in evaluation processes.
I assess how your solution is likely to be interpreted and where it may impact scoring outcomes. I work with organizations competing for high-value contracts where the margin between winning and losing comes down to how capability is communicated to a risk-conscious evaluation committee.
I work fluently in English and French, supporting bilingual procurement environments where nuance in both languages directly impacts how proposals are interpreted and scored.
Send your draft. You get back a written assessment, criterion by criterion, in 5 to 10 business days.
Best engaged before your submission deadline.
Response within one business day. Conversations are confidential.
Not ready to send yet? Let's talk first.