Why CoPilot Is Undermining Your Bids – And How to Fix It

By Lisa Reece, Senior Bid Consultant

We know time is tight and bid teams are under increasing pressure to deliver more tender responses in shorter time scales. So, it’s no surprise that many organisations have introduced AI tools like Microsoft Copilot into their 365 models to streamline their tender writing process.

On the face of it, this seems a logical move to reap the benefits AI capabilities bring to automating repetitive tasks such as storyboarding and generating first drafts to save time and resources across the bid programme.

But we’re now seeing AI-generated content adversely affecting the quality of bid submissions.

What’s Going Wrong?

Over the past few months, we’ve reviewed several submissions, produced in part or in full by CoPilot. While the intent is genuine (to save time and meet deadlines), the output is resulting in lower success rates and reduced buyer confidence.

Some of the consistent issues we are aware of include:

• AI wording such as “embedded”, “protocols”, “robust”, “structured”, and “aligned”
• Repetitive sentence structures across different answers and bids
• Generic language that lacks the nuances of client requirements
• Hallucinations and invented scenarios, evidence, and statements
• Lack of detailed explanations, such as how something is done and what the benefit is
• Misinterpretation of questions and specification requirements, especially multi-part or outcome-based submissions
• Overuse of stock phrases like ‘we are committed to delivering excellence’
• Missing evidence – failing to locate or include it in answers, which omits proof points
• Misalignment between risks, mitigations, and key programme information such as milestones, key dependencies, and constraints
• Confusion over the client’s specified plans and systems

AI is good at creating the illusion of a complete answer, but it removes the substance evaluators seek regarding the specification(s), drawings, and contractual obligations under the terms of the contract.

Why Is This Happening?

Clients are using heavily restricted versions of CoPilot – designed around their IT and Data Security policies to minimise risk. These tend to offer:

Rigid Templates = Rigid Answers – Many organisations have rolled out CoPilot with a fixed set of templates to standardise responses. While this might seem like a good way to reduce time and ensure consistency, in reality, it restricts the ability to tailor answers to specific questions, buyers, or contracts. Tenders rarely follow a one-size-fits-all format, and when every response (or section) reads the same, evaluators quickly realise that little thought has gone into the submission narrative.

No Context = Incomplete Answers – CoPilot often lacks the ability to understand the full context of the tender; for example, what the buyer is really asking, how that relates to scoring, and where nuance is needed. It has a limited ability to understand large documents or to interpret subtle shifts in tone across different sections. As a result, it can misjudge priorities, answer only part of a question, or fail to align with the buyer’s strategic goals or values.

Generic Models = Generic Content – Unless you’re working with a heavily tailored, trained AI model (which most CoPilot installs are not), the language it generates is based on broad, public content, not sector-specific experience. It is generally limited to GPT-5 Quick Responses, which generates vague, high-level answers that lack the technical credibility, terminology, or strategic references expected in specialist industries such as rail, construction, healthcare, or facilities management.

Limited Reading Capacity = Limited Outputs – AI tools can struggle to extract and interpret data from supporting documents such as project case studies, risk registers, delivery schedules, or policies, especially if those documents aren’t well formatted or clearly labelled. CoPilot is often limited to analysing fewer than five documents at a time. This means valuable content is overlooked or underused, and key evidence and procedural requirements are omitted from responses. Unlike a human bid consultant, CoPilot can’t decide what’s relevant, distil it, or weave it into a persuasive narrative.

Additionally, staff using CoPilot are not even trained in prompt engineering or to edit AI outputs. As a result, they rely on what’s produced, assuming it’s ‘good enough’, and aren’t able to see the nuances of AI due to a lack of experience. But good enough won’t win tenders, especially when competitors will back up their claims with quantified evidence, tailor their answers to the buyer’s requirements, and focus on the scoring criteria.

What Are The Real Risks?

Lack of clarity and depth – Evaluators want clearly defined commitments, clarity about how you will deliver your solution, and quantified proof of auditable past successes, not just words that sound like they answer the question. AI-generated content might sound nice on the surface, but it often:

• Feels impersonal or generic
• Misses key scoring criteria
• Fails to demonstrate real added value
• Lacks buyer focus or specificity
• Knocks the buyer’s internal customer’s confidence in your ability to deliver

This leads to late rewrites and frustrated authors and reviewers.

One evaluator recently commented on a client’s bid (written by them internally): “The response lacks sufficient detail and examples of how the supplier will deliver the service.” That one sentence resulted in a low score, cost them a large re-contracting opportunity, and caused several redundancies through loss of the work. When we investigated, it was clear that CoPilot had been used to generate a boilerplate answer that didn’t really answer the question, and nobody had picked it up.

Evaluator fatigue from generic content – As Co-Pilot implementations continue to increase across bid teams, evaluators are becoming more attuned to the hallmarks of AI-generated content, including repeated phrases, vague language, repetitive structures, and a generic tone. The more familiar they become with these patterns, the quicker they’ll recognise when a response lacks authenticity or depth. This growing awareness risks undermining bidder credibility and could lead to lost marks, even if the content is technically compliant.

Similar bids to competitors – One of the most significant hidden risks of using CoPilot or other AI writing tools is the risk of content duplication across competitors. When multiple bidders in the same sector use the same or similar AI models, often with comparable prompts, the resulting language, phrasing, and even structure and headings can be remarkably alike. Evaluators are already noticing this trend when reading several submissions that sound almost identical, with the same sentence patterns, generic assurances, and “conclusions”. This dilutes your differentiation and risks raising concerns about authenticity and originality. In some cases, it could even flag potential issues of collusion or hallucinated non-compliances. Your competitive edge lies in your evidence, tone, and lived experience – aspects no generic AI tool can replicate. Without careful human refinement and narrative distinction, your tender could end up mirroring your competitor’s in both form and content, making it far more challenging to stand out or score highly.

Mandatory AI declaration under the Procurement Act – Under the Procurement Act 2023, suppliers are now also expected to declare the use of AI tools in preparing their submissions. While the intent is to promote transparency, it also places additional scrutiny on bidders and bid writers. If evaluators know that parts of a response were AI-generated, they may examine the content more critically, focusing on originality, depth of understanding, and evidential quality. This makes it even more critical to ensure that AI-assisted bid writing outputs are reviewed, refined, and validated before submission.

How Can I Get The Best Results?

We’re not anti-AI. Tools like CoPilot absolutely have a place in modern bid teams, especially for:

• Structuring responses
• Creating answer plans/storyboards
• Storing and repurposing past content and case studies

But the critical step in making AI work well is human intervention. A skilled bid professional will be able to:

• Spot gaps in compliance with requirements or logic
• Add/improve evidence and credibility from a company perspective
• Tailor the tone and language to sound less robotic and repetitive
• Align to the scoring criteria

And that’s where we come in…

How Can BWL Help?

At BWL, we offer specialist review services to support your subject matter experts and bid teams, including those using AI tools. Whether you want a light-touch validation check, a quick language edit, or a deep-dive compliance review, we ensure your bid is fit to submit.

Our review services include:

• Validation against the specification and terms and conditions
• Compliance and completeness checks against the question and wider tender documentation
• Evaluation against the scoring criteria alignment
• Checks for structure and language improvements
• Identification of missing evidence or value-add
• Tone and narrative refinement

We act as an independent second pair of eyes, challenging your content, improving it, and ensuring your bid reads like a credible, human-written, winning response.

You still get the time-saving benefits of CoPilot, but we make sure the quality’s there, too.

Before you hit submit, let us help

Get in touch at enquiries@bwlgroup.co.uk or visit Professional Bid Services to explore our services.