How to Write a Technical Offer for Malta Government Tenders

What a technical offer is and how it differs from the financial offer

In Malta government tenders, bids are divided into two separate components submitted through ePPS: a technical offer and a financial offer. The technical offer covers everything except price — your proposed approach, team, work plan, quality controls, and evidence of relevant experience. The financial offer contains your prices, rates, or lump sums against the contract schedule.

The two components are evaluated independently. Evaluators assess the technical offer first, without access to price information, to prevent the financial offer influencing quality judgments. After technical scoring is complete, financial scores are calculated and the two are combined using a fixed weighting — typically 70/30 or 80/20 in favour of the technical offer, though the exact ratio is stated in each CFT evaluation section.

This weighting matters significantly. Under a 70/30 quality/price split, a bidder who scores 90% on quality but 70% on price will almost certainly beat one who scores 70% on quality but 90% on price. Investing proportionate effort in the technical offer — and understanding the evaluation criteria before writing a single word — delivers a greater commercial return than marginal price optimisation for most Malta public service contracts.

Most Malta tenders also set a minimum technical score threshold — commonly 70 out of 100 — below which a bid is eliminated even if it is fully compliant and competitively priced. The financial offer is never opened for bids that fall below this threshold. The threshold is always stated in the CFT evaluation section and must be treated as a baseline, not a target.

Typical structure of a Malta tender technical offer

The structure of a technical offer varies by contract type and by contracting authority, but most Malta government tenders follow a broadly consistent pattern. The CFT specifies the required sections and, in many cases, a mandatory sequence. Always follow the structure specified in the CFT — reorganising sections according to your own preference makes it harder for evaluators to locate scored content and can result in marks being missed.

The standard sections in a Malta government tender technical offer are:

• Understanding of requirements: A summary of the contract objectives, key challenges, and your interpretation of what the contracting authority is trying to achieve. This section signals that you have read and understood the Terms of Reference rather than responded generically. Typically weighted at 15 to 20 points.
• Proposed methodology: The core of the technical offer. Describes your approach to delivering each component of the contract — what you will do, how you will do it, and why your approach is appropriate for this specific context. Usually the highest-weighted section, commonly 30 to 40 points.
• Work plan / implementation plan: A timeline showing the sequence of activities, milestones, and deliverables across the contract period. Often presented as a Gantt chart or phased narrative with clear resource ownership. Typically 10 to 20 points.
• Team composition and CVs: The proposed team members with defined roles, responsibilities, and CVs demonstrating relevant qualifications and experience against the minimum expert requirements in Section III of the CFT. Typically 20 to 30 points.
• Quality assurance: Internal review processes, version control, client reporting, and escalation mechanisms that ensure deliverable quality. Some CFTs score this as a standalone criterion; others embed it within methodology.
• Relevant organisational experience: A summary of past contracts of a similar nature — typically in tabular format covering client, scope, value, duration, and outcome — demonstrating that the organisation has successfully delivered comparable work before.

Not all Malta tenders include all of these sections, and some add others — stakeholder engagement plans, data protection statements, or local content commitments. Read the evaluation criteria in full and ensure your structure explicitly addresses every scored criterion.

Writing a methodology that scores well

The methodology section is the highest-weight component of most technical offers in Malta government tenders, and also the section most commonly written poorly. The difference between a methodology that scores well and one that does not is almost always specificity: whether the content responds directly to this contract's requirements, or whether it describes general organisational practice that could apply to any project.

Work from the Terms of Reference, not from a template

Begin by reading the Terms of Reference (ToR) in full and mapping every distinct deliverable, activity, and required output. For each one, draft a response that explains your specific approach. Avoid starting from a methodology template and fitting the ToR content into it — the result is invariably a generic document that experienced evaluators recognise immediately.

A robust structure for each deliverable within the methodology is: what the requirement is; what your specific approach will be; why that approach is appropriate in Malta's context; what the key risks are and how you will manage them; and what the success indicator or acceptance criterion is. This ensures every methodological statement is traceable to a specific requirement and contains the substantive content evaluators look for when awarding high scores.

Demonstrate Malta-specific knowledge

Malta's public sector environment has specific characteristics: the scale and structure of public institutions; the bilingual operating environment in English and Maltese; the relationship between central government, agencies, and local councils; the particular regulatory frameworks applicable to Malta and Gozo; and the practical constraints common to small island economies with limited supplier depth. A methodology that acknowledges and responds to these conditions — rather than treating Malta as interchangeable with any EU member state — scores considerably better than generic text. If you have delivered contracts in Malta before, reference that experience explicitly and specifically.

Address risks specifically

Risk sections in Malta technical offers frequently contain generic lists of common project risks with equally generic mitigations recycled from previous bids. A methodology that identifies risks specific to this contract — relating to data access timelines, stakeholder coordination constraints, regulatory approval dependencies, or physical access conditions — and proposes proportionate mitigations specific to those risks will score considerably better. Evaluators distinguish between a risk register clearly written for this contract and one that was not.

Presenting your team effectively

Team CVs and the team composition section are scored on two levels: first against the minimum pass/fail expert requirements set out in Section III of the CFT, and then against broader quality criteria relating to team suitability and depth of relevant experience. Two separate problems commonly arise: CVs that fail the minimum requirements, and CVs that meet the minimums but score low on quality criteria.

Meeting minimum expert requirements

Where the CFT specifies minimum qualifications, years of relevant experience, professional memberships, or language requirements for key experts, these are pass/fail thresholds. A CV that does not explicitly demonstrate every stated requirement will result in the expert scoring zero on the relevant criterion, or — where minimum expert requirements are conditions of compliance — the bid being disqualified.

Read the key expert requirements in Section III and cross-check every CV against every stated criterion before submission. The most common failures: experience stated in total years rather than years in the specific sub-sector required; qualifications not named explicitly (relying on evaluators to infer equivalence); and experience in the right field but outside the geographic scope or contract type specified. Each results in the criterion failing.

CV format requirements

Many Malta tenders specify a CV format — most commonly Europass, or a custom template in the CFT annexes. Using a different format when one is specified, even a more polished one, can result in non-compliance. Use the specified template exactly as provided. Where no template is specified, a structured format covering personal information, education and qualifications, professional experience in reverse chronological order, and language skills is standard.

Writing CVs that score on quality criteria

Beyond meeting minimum thresholds, CVs are scored on the relevance and depth of experience. A CV listing job titles and employers without describing the specific work done will score poorly, even if the expert is genuinely highly experienced in the relevant field. For each role, describe the specific tasks performed, the scale of contracts managed, the client type, and any outcomes directly relevant to the CFT's requirements. Evaluators score what is explicitly stated, not what might be inferred from seniority or the name of the employer.

Using the evaluation criteria as a writing guide

The evaluation criteria published in the CFT are not just a reference document — they are the marking scheme for your technical offer. Every scored criterion is a question that your technical offer must answer explicitly. Treating the criteria as a writing guide rather than an afterthought is the single most effective discipline for improving technical offer scores in Malta public procurement.

Structure your offer around the criteria

For each criterion in the CFT, create a corresponding section or clearly labelled subsection in your technical offer. Use language from the criterion in your headings or opening sentences. If a criterion asks evaluators to assess the "credibility of the proposed methodology", the corresponding section should make a credibility case with specific evidence — not just describe what you will do. If a criterion asks for evidence of "relevant experience in Malta public sector contracts", the section must explicitly list Malta public sector contracts by client, scope, and value.

Evaluators work through a scoring matrix, assigning marks to each criterion based on what is written in the corresponding section of your offer. If the relevant content is buried in a different section, it may not be credited. Make it impossible for an evaluator to miss the scored content for any criterion.

Allocate writing effort to criterion weighting

A methodology section weighted at 35 points deserves substantially more depth and specificity than a quality assurance section weighted at 10 points. Many bidders allocate writing effort uniformly across all sections, producing thin coverage of the most heavily weighted criteria. Before writing, map each criterion to its weighting and allocate space proportionally. A rough rule: if a criterion is worth 30% of the total score, it should occupy approximately 30% of your substantive content.

Understand the scoring descriptors

Where the CFT publishes scoring descriptors — descriptions of what constitutes a score of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on each criterion — read them carefully. The descriptor for the top score is the standard to write to. A common pattern in Malta procurement is that scores of 3 or below correspond to adequate but generic content, while scores of 4 and 5 require specific evidence, credible reasoning, or added value beyond the minimum requirement. Writing to consistently achieve 4 or above on each criterion is the target for a winning technical offer.

Format, length, and submission requirements

Format requirements for technical offers in Malta tenders vary by contracting authority and contract type, but certain standards apply consistently across most Department of Contracts and EU-funded procurement processes.

Page limits

Where a page limit is specified in the CFT, it is strictly enforced — content beyond the stated limit is not evaluated. This means that if your executive summary and company background sections run long and push your methodology section to pages 22 to 30 of a 20-page limit, the methodology will not be scored. Structure your offer so the highest-weighted sections come first. Standard page limits for service contract technical offers in Malta range from 15 to 40 pages excluding CVs and annexes, though the applicable limit is always the one in the CFT.

Font, margins, and line spacing

Where font and margin requirements are specified, follow them precisely. Where not specified, a minimum 11pt body font, standard one-inch page margins, and 1.15 to 1.5 line spacing are conventional. Compressing font size or margins to fit more content within a page limit is noticed by evaluators and creates a poor reading experience. If your content will not fit within the page limit at a readable size, the content needs to be edited, not compressed.

Mandatory templates

Some Malta tenders — particularly technical assistance and consultancy contracts — provide mandatory templates for specific sections. Where a methodology template or work plan template is provided in the CFT annexes, you must use it. Similarly, where a CV template is specified, only that template is acceptable. Download all CFT annexes before beginning to write and check each one for templates that must be used.

Language

Technical offers for Malta government tenders are submitted in English in the vast majority of cases. Some contracts issued by Maltese-language departments may accept or require Maltese. The accepted language is stated in the CFT. English is the de facto standard for Department of Contracts tenders and for EU-funded contracts administered through Malta's managing authorities.

What evaluators penalise

Certain patterns in technical offers reliably produce lower scores across Malta procurement evaluations, regardless of the underlying quality of the bidder's approach. Avoiding these patterns is as important as writing strong positive content.

Unsubstantiated claims

"Our team has extensive experience in this field" is not scored. "Our team has delivered six similar contracts for Malta public authorities over the past five years, including contracts for the Foundation for Medical Services and the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority at values between €150,000 and €400,000" can be scored. Every quality claim must be backed by specific, verifiable evidence. Superlatives — excellent, world-class, highly experienced — add no scored content and experienced evaluators discount them.

Describing inputs rather than outcomes

A methodology that focuses on what you will bring to the contract — staff numbers, tools, certifications, experience — rather than what the contract will achieve and how you will achieve it scores poorly on most quality criteria. For each activity, frame your response around the output and your approach to achieving it. Evaluators assess your ability to deliver outcomes, not your resource inventory.

Internal inconsistencies

If your work plan shows a deliverable completed in month 3 but your methodology describes a preparation phase requiring at least four months, evaluators will note the inconsistency and score down the credibility of both sections. If your team composition includes two experts but your work plan assigns tasks requiring four concurrent staff, the feasibility of your work plan is undermined. Internal consistency across methodology, work plan, and team sections is essential — check for it explicitly before submission.

Padding and repetition

Content that repeats points already made, describes the contracting authority's Terms of Reference back to it without adding analysis, or fills space with general sector background that is not specific to this contract is treated as zero-value content by evaluators. It also consumes page limit that should be allocated to higher-value scored content. Write concisely and purposefully. If a sentence does not directly support a scored criterion, cut it.

Frequently asked questions

For the administrative and eligibility requirements that must be met before technical evaluation begins, see our guide to Malta tender mistakes. To understand the minimum requirements you need to meet before bidding, see our eligibility guide. For hands-on technical offer support, contact us.