For Australian engineering, construction, property, surveying and other project based firms
An entry that
deserves to win.
We write your award submissions. Send us the reports, debriefs and correspondence you already have and we find the strongest case in them, identify the evidence worth chasing and write the finished entry.
Criterion 3 · Safety outcomes · worth 25% of the total mark
The question
Describe the safety outcomes achieved on the project, and how they were achieved.
Safety on this project is measured in exposure that never existed, not in incidents that were avoided.
That distinction was settled at the March design review, twelve weeks before the first segment arrived on site, when the team asked whether the deck could be erected without anyone working below the high water mark. Segmental lifting from the bank was adopted before the method statement was issued, and the issued statement records that no personnel were required below the high water mark at any stage, a decision taken while it was still cheap to make and while the programme could still absorb it.
The consequence is legible in the paperwork rather than in the claims made about it. The site permit register records no confined space permits and no in-water work permits for the duration of the works, not because none were sought but because none were required, and over the same period the project worked 61,400 hours across 214 personnel with no lost time injuries and no recordable injuries, through eighteen months and two flood seasons.
Where exposure could not be removed it was controlled rather than accepted. Pier cap connection was carried out from a fixed platform above the water, with edge protection and fall arrest installed before access was granted, and the two permits issued for that activity are closed out against the works package, a record a judge can check rather than take on trust.
The client reached the same conclusion independently. The post-completion debrief attributes the absence of any incident notification to the erection method rather than to site supervision, a distinction that decides what the result is worth: supervision has to hold for eighteen months, a design decision holds by itself.
Together, a method chosen before it was costly to change, a permit register with nothing in it to close out and 61,400 hours worked without injury describe a project on which the safest option was also the one that was built, an approach since written into the firm’s standard for bridge erection over water.
Every underlined statement traces to a document you supplied. Sources are listed in full on page 7.
Narrowed, no source
an industry leading safety record → removed. No document in your material supports a comparison against other projects.
Illustrative extract of what you receive. Real client work stays confidential to the client.
of the award submissions I have written, of those decided, have won.
Founder, Probative
Probative is the system I built to reproduce that work and go further into your own files than I could by hand. I run every submission personally and read every word before it reaches you.
Three lines of paperwork. One winning argument.
You already know the good things about your project. So does every other entrant. What decides it is whether the entry can show a judge why yours happened.
Criterion 3 · Safety outcomes
Three lines, and the sentence they make
In your files 3 lines from 412 pages
“Deck segments lifted into position from the bank. No personnel required below the high water mark at any stage.”
f7Method statement MS-07, rev B“Confined space and in-water work permits issued: nil.”
f9Site permit register“Hours worked 61,400. Lost time injuries 0. Recordable injuries 0.”
f14Monthly safety report, finalIn the entry
Deck segments were lifted into position from the bank, with no personnel required below the high water mark at any stagef7. The site permit register records no confined space or in-water permits for the duration of the worksf9, and 61,400 hours were worked with no lost time and no recordable injuriesf14.
Scores on: safety achieved by design, not by supervision. Every entrant reports zero injuries. Only you can say why yours happened.
Still missing
How many hours would have been worked below the high water mark under the conventional in-situ method? One question, for your project team. Without that number you have a good result. With it you can measure the exposure the design removed, which is the part a judge can mark.
Illustrative. Real client output stays confidential to the client.
The right project. The right case. The evidence to prove it.
Three jobs, in that order. The writing is the last of them and it can only argue what the first two found.
Find the case
The case is the argument your entry makes about why the work deserves to win, and the evidence underneath it. Your projects and your people, compared against this year’s published criteria rather than against how proud of them you are. Which one carries the strongest case, which angle inside it and why the others do not.
Find what is missing
Not a checklist. The specific facts that would change the entry, what each one is worth against which criterion, and who in your firm to ask for it. Usually two or three things, usually already in somebody else’s inbox.
Write the entry
Every answer built around one argument, inside the word limit, specific enough to survive a practitioner reading it closely and clear enough to hold a judge who works in another discipline.
Every factual claim traces back to your own documents.
Every figure, outcome, date and claim about who did what is tied to something in a document you sent us. Not most of them. Every one. So anything a judge questions, you can answer on the spot.
When the writing reaches for a claim your documents will not support, there are only two ways to fix it. Invent the support, which is what a general AI tool does and does not tell you it has done. Or narrow the claim to what your record actually holds. It always does the second, and it comes back to you with what the stronger version would have needed.
Criterion 3 · Safety outcomes
Every factual statement, and where it came from
Illustrative. Anything the record will not carry comes back to you as a short list of what to go and find out, each item naming who to ask.
You do two things.
An award entry is about ten jobs. Two of them need you, because one needs your people and the other needs your signature. The rest happen before you read a word of it.
Send what already exists
Reports, proposals, correspondence, meeting minutes, site instructions, spreadsheets, drawings, photographs, certificates, registers, debriefs, transcripts, voice notes and past submissions. Whatever exists, in whatever state it is in. Do not tidy it and do not write anything new.
Ten minutes
Answer six questions and approve it
Six questions only your team can answer, like whether an underspend was returned to the client or reallocated. Then read the draft, change anything you want and submit it.
About an hour
Lodging stays with you. You submit through the award programme’s own entry system, under your firm’s name, which keeps the entry yours on the record. Every answer arrives inside its own word limit so it is a paste rather than a rewrite, you get that programme’s file and field requirements with the draft, and we will sit on a call while you do it if that helps.
One won tender pays for a decade of entries.
Your work arrives by tender, and a tender is an argument about whether your firm can be trusted with something expensive and difficult. An award is independent proof that settles part of that argument before you have to make it.
Work out what one job you would not otherwise have been invited to bid for is worth to your firm. Then work out what proportion of that you would spend on improving the odds of being invited. A win does not expire when the ceremony ends. It is a line in tender submissions, a paragraph in the capability statement that nobody has to argue for, a reason a good graduate has heard of you before the interview and a reason the people you already have stay.
Most of that arrives with the shortlist rather than the trophy. Finalists are published too, and a firm that was shortlisted against the field can say so in every proposal that follows. How much of it converts is yours to judge. None of it is available to a firm that did not enter.
The submission is the deliverable. The work it wins you is the point.
Built by an award writer. Run by the same person while we launch.
Of the award submissions I have written, 86% of the ones that have been decided have won. I wrote them by hand, in project-based industries, in the categories this is built for. The writing was the part I was good at. The reading, the choosing and the chasing were the part that took the weeks, and they never got faster no matter how many times I did it. So I built the engine to do all of it, the writing included, to the standard I would have written it myself.
You will not be handed to an account manager. I run every submission myself, and I will tell you plainly when the engine has found a thin case rather than dressing it up.
Open entries
Bridge replacement
Draft 3 of 4 answers draftedThe client workspace, in build. It is not open yet and there is nothing to log into. Today everything above arrives as documents and I run every submission personally. That is deliberate rather than a limitation: every award programme has its own criteria, its own quirks and its own judges, and I would rather meet those myself on your entry than hand you a self serve tool that has not met them yet.
Start with two answers.
Send an award you are actually entering and whatever project material you already have. Do not tidy it up and do not write anything new.
- Two of the award’s actual questions, answered in full and ready to read
- The case we would make across the whole entry, and why that project and that angle
- The questions we would send your project team, and what each answer would change
- The claims that one more fact would unlock, and exactly which fact each one needs
Try it on a real entry
Credited in full against your first submission or an annual plan. If you read it and walk away, that is a fine outcome and you owe nothing further.
A consultant charges $2,000 to $12,500. For one entry.
It depends on the size of the entry and how much of it they have to do. Where a fee is published it is usually a range, and where it is not you find out the number after you have described your project to them. Ours is $1,200, it is published and it does not move.
Our prices
For comparison, the same single entry three ways
Two of these are what you are choosing between. The third is ours, on the four a year plan.
A consultant
$2,000–12,500
per entry, scaled to its size and booked out in the month everything closes
In house
20–40 hrs
of one senior person per entry, across three weeks, on top of their real job
Probative
$1,125
per entry on the four a year plan, less on the larger ones and about an hour of your time
The ladder is meant to be obvious. Try one entry for $250. Buy a single entry for $1,200 with no commitment. If you enter four or more a year, an annual plan works out cheaper than buying them one at a time.
Four is not a cap and there is no per entry top up. A firm entering eight takes the $7,900 plan, a firm entering twelve takes the $10,900 plan, and the price per submission falls as the number rises. That is not a volume discount. Your second entry genuinely costs less to produce than your first, because your material is already in the system, so the saving is passed on rather than kept.
Australian dollars. Our price is the same whether the entry runs to four questions or fourteen, and it does not move with the size of your material. There is no rush fee.
What you are probably thinking.
Will a judge mark us down for using AI?
An award consultancy that sells the human alternative published research finding that 71% of judges believe they can spot AI copy and 42% consciously mark it down. Take the number seriously and note where it came from.
You already know what they are marking down, because you have probably seen it. Something fluent and confident that never says what was actually done. The work called innovative with no account of what was innovative about it. A number in the third paragraph that was never in your material.
That happens because nobody can paste four hundred pages into a chat window. What the tool gets is a paragraph of your recollection, and confident vagueness is the only thing it can build from that. Reading the whole record is the part that does not fit in a chat window, and it is the part being done here.
Three things follow from that. Every factual claim has to trace back to one of your own documents, and vague adjective-heavy assertion is precisely what has nothing behind it to cite, so it does not survive. The specifics are yours: your figures, your dates, your project’s own detail, none of which a model can produce from a prompt because they exist only in your files. And it writes the way I write these by hand, not the way a general model writes.
Two people then read every word before a judge does. I read it, and so do you.
Can our project material leave the building?
Often the real blocker, particularly on alliance and government work, so it is worth settling before anything else. Tell us what cannot be shared and the entry is built from what can. That is rarely as limiting as it sounds, because the strongest claims are usually about what your firm did rather than about your client’s business.
What you send stays on our systems and no other client ever sees it. The AI providers used to process it do not train on it. You read every word before the entry is lodged, so nothing of yours reaches a form without your approval. You can ask for it to be deleted at any time, without giving a reason, and it goes within thirty days.
It is used to produce your submissions, which includes checking that every claim in your entry traces back to a source and that nothing has been invented. Your material is also used internally, on our systems only, to confirm the engine itself is still working correctly. It is never shown to another client and never used to produce anyone else’s entry.
What if we do not win?
Then you do not win, and no supplier can honestly promise otherwise. The result is decided by a panel reading dozens of entries against criteria they weight themselves, and anyone implying they control that outcome is selling something they do not have.
What is controllable is whether the entry made the strongest case your evidence could support, and you can check that for yourself. Every claim traces to one of your own documents, so you can see exactly what the panel was given and what each part of it rested on.
You also keep the case analysis, and it is the part that keeps working after the result is known. It sets out the argument the entry made, the evidence behind each claim and the criterion where your record had the least to offer, along with the specific facts that would have strengthened it. Enter again and that list is what you go and collect first, so the next entry starts from a known position rather than from nothing.
The result is decided once. What you learn about your own evidence is yours to keep.
Every Australian award deadline that matters, in one place.
Eighty programmes across engineering, surveying, construction, infrastructure, property and professional services. Open and close dates, categories, entry fees and where the past winners are listed.
No signup, no email wall, no account. It is free because keeping it current is useful to us anyway.
Start here
Send us an award you are actually entering.
Two complete answers, the case we would make, the questions we would send your team and the claims that one more fact would unlock. Credited in full if you go ahead.
If you read it and walk away, you owe nothing further.