Two teams can buy the same AI tool but can get completely different outcomes. One gets faster and sharper. Whereas the other ends up with more noise, more rework, and a pile of generic words that do not sound like them.

When I spoke with April Shields, Head of Submissions at Built, she made it clear why.

There is a club in the bidding world that I refuse to join.

It doesn’t have an official clubhouse, but if you’ve been in this industry long enough, you know exactly where to find it. You find it in the late-night text messages, the lukewarm takeaway containers littering the boardroom table, and the weary, caffeine-fueled voices during a midnight review.

Carla Garvie, Commercial Director (Australia & New Zealand) at Alstom, has spent more than 25 years in rail and mobility. When we talked about what actually creates an edge in high-stakes bids, she started with preparation, role clarity, and the systems that let data shape decisions all the way through the tender.

There’s a particular word that’s been bothering me.

If you’re in the bidding world, you know there are plenty of words that really annoy us. Words like “world class”, “synergies”, “unsurpassed”. These and many others are the usual hyperbolic suspects that show up in bids when someone is trying to sound impressive and ends up sounding like a brochure.

Tenders are won by the team that understands the client the best. Not just what they wrote in the RFT, but what sits underneath it. The pressures they are under. The risks they are trying to avoid. The internal dynamics they are navigating. The outcomes they are quietly hoping for, even if they never say them out loud.

Tendering was not the path I expected to take, but it became the work that showed me how meaningful impact can happen in very real and practical ways. What began as a dream of diplomacy eventually led me into the world of aid, and then into tendering, where I discovered a craft that is strategic, collaborative and deeply purposeful.