Start with the actual tender documents and the bid manager. This checklist helps identify the decisions to resolve before requesting a new edit. It does not establish eligibility, interpret procurement law or predict an evaluation result.
Find the instruction before choosing the format
Record the clause or instruction governing supporting material. Check whether it addresses attachments, links, file types, size limits, supplementary information or access to external services. If the conditions are unclear, use the tender's authorised clarification process through the responsible bid contact.
Do not assume a publicly accessible link is acceptable because it is easy to open. Equally, do not assume a separate video file is required when a permitted written case study would answer the criterion. The correct format comes from the submission requirements, not a general preference for video.
Keep the version of the conditions you checked. An amendment may change what the team must supply, so the acceptance decision should be revisited when the bid owner receives updated instructions.
Connect each sequence to a criterion
Write the criterion or question the film would support. Then identify the exact project fact or experience shown. A polished overview of a large project may have little relevance to a narrowly defined capability requirement.
Separate what the film explains from what must be established through other evidence. An interview can describe a coordination decision; it does not automatically prove a contractual outcome, certification or measured performance result. Ask the relevant project owner to confirm supporting facts and the bid manager to decide how they belong in the response.
Avoid using the film to add claims that the written submission cannot support. The same project names, dates, roles and qualifications should remain consistent across both.
Check access and confidentiality through the bid owner
Ask who is permitted to view the material and whether the proposed delivery route fits the tender's conditions. Identify account, password or external-access dependencies without assuming the evaluator can or should work around them.
Use only a version approved for the intended submission. A review link may contain comments, unfinished material or options that were never authorised for release. A public case study may also include material that is irrelevant to a confidential bid response.
If accessibility requirements are specified, record the actual wording and who will verify it. Do not replace a stated requirement with a vague promise that the film has captions.
Copy the tender acceptance check
- Tender name, reference and conditions version:
- Responsible bid manager:
- Relevant clause or instruction:
- Criterion the film would support:
- Exact sequence and factual evidence:
- Permitted delivery form and applicable limits:
- External-access or account conditions:
- Accessibility requirements to confirm:
- Confidentiality and release status:
- Required file or link testing owner:
- Clarification question and authorised route:
- Alternative evidence if video is unsuitable:
- Final acceptance decision and date:
Mark unknowns as questions. A checked box should have an evidence reference or a named person able to explain the decision.
A fictional tender decision
A fictional contractor wants to include a film showing its role in a staged refurbishment. The film is relevant, but the team has not checked whether the tender permits external links. Rather than adding a link and hoping it will be opened, the bid manager reviews the instructions and raises any necessary clarification through the stated process.
The team also prepares an authorised written account with suitable supporting material, in case that is the permitted route. This is an invented example; it makes no claim about a specific tender or evaluation preference.
Request only the changes the submission needs
Once the route is confirmed, brief production on the actual requirement and delivery deadline. A different duration, caption arrangement or excerpt may require additional work and approval. Ask about scope before treating it as part of an existing package.
Live Images describes proposal conversations as one possible use for its Industry Standard project films. That service description does not imply acceptance by every procurement process. Keep the bid manager's confirmed instructions with the final submission record, and use the audience story-use map only if the underlying audience need also needs clarification.
Sources and editorial note
Live Images — Industry Standard, checked 29 October 2026, supports the limited description of the current project-film service and agreed scope.
No tender-specific rule is asserted. The buyer must supply and check the actual tender conditions and authorised clarifications.
The worksheet and fictional example are original planning guidance. Confirm project facts, responsibilities and any proposed production changes with the appropriate people and the written scope. Prepared with AI assistance for Live Images.