Tender Proposal Design in Malaysia: Layout, Bilingual, Submission, and Print

A tender proposal is not a company profile, and a company profile is not a tender proposal. Both documents travel inside the same submission pack, and they share content, but they price and produce differently because they answer different questions. The company profile answers “who are we” against the buyer’s pre-qualification rubric. The tender proposal answers “how will we deliver this specific scope” against the evaluation rubric in the tender document.

Across Malaysian federal, state, and GLC procurement, the same pattern shows up on the agency side of the brief: bidders with strong project history and the right registrations submit proposal documents that are dense, inconsistent, or mis-ordered against the published evaluation criteria, which makes the review harder than it needs to be. Tender proposal design is the discipline of structuring, formatting, bilingual handling, and printing a bid document so that the evaluation panel can move through it against the rubric without hunting for the answers. It does not substitute for a strong technical answer; it supports the review of one.

This guide covers the layout, bilingual handling, submission discipline, and print specifications for tender proposal design in Malaysia in 2026: how the technical and commercial sections fit together, how parallel and sequential bilingual EN/BM layouts work in practice, what the ePerolehan and Sistem JET upload rules ask of a digital submission, what Walk Production’s print specifications look like for a typical pack count, and how the proposal sits alongside the company profile and the statutory attachments inside the full submission set.

Walk Production is an integrated creative agency in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, with HQ in Shah Alam and 40 in-house specialists across copywriting, design, photography, print, and digital. Since 2018, we have produced tender-grade proposals, company profiles, and bilingual EN/BM submission documents for Malaysian SMEs, listed companies, government-linked enterprises, and federal-agency suppliers. For the wider procurement context, see our tender process in Malaysia guide, our JKR tender guide, our ePerolehan tender guide, and our company profile design guide.

What tender proposal design actually is

Tender proposal design is the project-specific response to a published tender notice, built against the evaluation rubric in that tender document. The reader is an evaluation panel reviewing the document against the published criteria under time pressure. The proposal earns its keep by making it easy for the panel to locate the rubric items in order; the substance of the technical and commercial response is what the panel actually reviews.

A useful frame is to read the proposal as a working document, not a marketing piece. The visual register is corporate and procurement-graded, not promotional. The strongest tender proposals look closer to an annual report or a consultancy proposal than to a sales brochure: clear hierarchy, disciplined typography, accurate cross-referencing, and a layout grid that holds together across the bilingual edition where one is required.

Three things define a tender proposal as a deliverable distinct from a company profile or a pitch deck.

The proposal is project-specific. Each tender notice carries its own evaluation criteria, page-limit rules, formatting requirements, and submission method. A proposal designed against one tender’s rubric does not transfer cleanly to another, even within the same agency category. The company profile inside the appendix is reusable across bids; the proposal narrative is not.

The proposal is structured against an external rubric. A company profile is structured against the bidder’s own story (who we are, what we do, who we serve). A proposal is structured against the buyer’s evaluation rubric (methodology, experience, team, timeline, deliverables, risk, commercial structure). Section order, heading hierarchy, and page allocation should follow the rubric, not the bidder’s preferred narrative.

The proposal is bound to a submission deadline. Submission close is set out in the tender notice and enforced by the issuing agency. Late or non-compliant submission may be rejected on the terms set out in the notice, so the production calendar for a tender proposal is calibrated against the submission close, not the brief sign-off. Print and delivery for hardcopy submissions and any multi-address delivery requirement runs against the same deadline.

How the proposal fits inside the submission pack

A complete Malaysian tender submission pack typically includes more than the proposal document itself. The 6 documents below cover the majority of what a panel reaches for in the first read. The full set sits inside the ePerolehan tender guide in detail; the short version is set out here.

The proposal document covers two of the six entries: the technical proposal and the commercial proposal. The cover letter, company profile, statutory attachments, and track record annexure sit alongside it inside the same submission set. The tender document controls which envelope each item goes into and how the two envelopes are sealed and labelled.

Where the tender uses a two-envelope evaluation method, technical and commercial documents must be kept strictly separate at every stage of preparation, not only at submission. A single RM figure leaking into a methodology page can disqualify a bid on procedural grounds before the substance is read. The simplest way to prevent it is to draft the two documents as separate file sets from the brief in, with separate cover sheets and separate file-naming conventions.

The four parts of a Malaysian tender proposal

The four-part structure below is the educational scaffolding most Malaysian tender proposals follow. The exact section weighting, page allocation, and evaluation split varies brief by brief; read the tender document for the specifics. What does not change is that the proposal owes the evaluator a clear, signposted path through the four parts.

Part 1: Cover and submission letter

This is the front of the technical envelope. A single-page letter from the managing director or authorised signatory confirms the bid, lists the documents enclosed, gives a clear contact for clarifications, and signals procedural compliance with the tender notice.

For a federal or GLC submission, the letter references the tender number, the SSM legal entity, the MOF Account or other registration codes the tender requires, the relevant Bidang or CIDB grade, and the issue date of the tender document the bid responds to. A sample compliance-letter opening for two-tier technical submissions sits inside our ePerolehan tender guide.

Sloppy here signals sloppy in delivery. Spend the time on this page; many evaluation panels read it first.

Part 2: Technical proposal

The technical proposal carries the substance of the bidder’s response: how the work will be delivered against the scope set out in the tender document. The seven sections below are the ones most Malaysian tender briefs ask for; the exact list and the section order should mirror the published evaluation criteria in the tender notice.

Executive summary. Single page, written last. Cover four things: understanding of the project scope, the proposed approach in two to three sentences, the bidder’s key differentiators against this specific tender, and the outcome the proposal will deliver. Many senior panel members read only this section before deciding whether the full proposal deserves a detailed review.

Methodology. The actual response to the brief. Describe the approach in concrete terms (steps, tools, deliverables, milestones), not in generic language. Process flow diagrams and methodology charts make complex approaches faster to follow. Avoid sales adjectives. Specifics beat positioning every time.

Team and capabilities. Key personnel assigned to the project, with their relevant qualifications and experience. Short CVs (one page per person) and an organisation chart showing reporting lines. Match the team CVs to the scope of the tender; an evaluator looks for the people who will actually do the work, not the bidder’s full headcount roster.

Project plan and timeline. Milestones, deliverable schedule, and key performance indicators in a visual format. Gantt charts and milestone tables work well. Include specific dates or time frames relative to the project start date.

Risk management and quality control. A short section setting out the risks the bidder anticipates, the mitigation approach, and the quality-control discipline that will apply to the delivery. Many Malaysian tender rubrics include risk and quality as a named review area; a proposal that skips it gives the reviewer nothing to read against that rubric item.

Capability and track record. Comparable projects with year, client, contract value (where disclosable), scope, the bidder’s role, and key outcomes. Verifiable specifics beat adjectives. A short track record annexure sits later in the technical envelope and carries the longer project list.

Compliance section. Cross-reference to the mandatory requirements, forms, statutory declarations, and supporting documents in the tender notice. Miss one mandatory item and the bid can be rejected before the evaluation committee reads the substance.

Part 3: Commercial proposal

The financial envelope. The commercial proposal carries the pricing structure (lump sum, schedule of rates, milestone billing), the payment milestones tied to delivery, the terms and conditions, and any commercial clarifications.

The structure of the commercial document matters even though the content is shorter. Procurement evaluators reading the commercial envelope after technical scoring expect a clear bill of quantities or priced schedule, a payment-milestone summary, and any commercial assumptions stated explicitly. Pricing that appears in unexplained line items, or terms hidden inside a long boilerplate clause, slows the evaluation down and invites clarification queries.

Under two-envelope evaluation, the commercial envelope is opened only after the bidder passes the technical-evaluation gate set out in the tender document. The technical document carries the substance the panel reviews against the published rubric, and the commercial document is reviewed against the published commercial criteria once the technical stage is complete. Final award decisions follow the tender notice’s evaluation method, not any single document’s design quality.

Part 4: Appendices

Certificates, reference letters, audited financial statements, the company profile, and any other supporting documents. Organised with clear dividers and a table of contents for the appendix section, so the panel can locate any specific attachment without flipping through the full pack.

For tender briefs that require a Sijil Taraf Bumiputera (STB) where Bumiputera reservation or preference applies, the SPKK endorsement where the works tender requires government-works eligibility, or sector-specific licences (DOSH, BNM, halal, MS ISO), the appendices section is where each one is filed. Validity dates on the day of submission must be current; lapsed certificates in the appendix are a self-inflicted procedural risk.

Bilingual EN and BM layout discipline

Many federal, state, and GLC tenders allow or require bilingual English and Bahasa Malaysia submissions. The tender notice will say which language each document must be submitted in, and whether parallel bilingual layout (both languages on the same spread) is acceptable. The bilingual question should be confirmed at brief stage, against the actual tender notice, not at proof stage.

Bilingual proposals create a layout problem. Bahasa Malaysia text typically runs 15 to 25 per cent longer than English. Column widths, line breaks, and page breaks designed against an English-first draft tend to break when the Malay text is dropped in. The professional approach handles the bilingual question at the grid stage, not the layout-fix stage.

Two production routes work for most briefs.

A hybrid is also possible and frequently used for federal submissions: parallel bilingual on the cover, the executive summary, and the compliance tables; sequential bilingual on the longer technical and commercial sections; and a single-language appendix in the language each attachment was issued in (SSM Sijil Pendaftaran in Bahasa Malaysia; ISO certificates in English; audited financials per the audit firm’s working language).

Whichever route the brief takes, the editorial discipline matters as much as the layout. Translation quality, technical-term consistency, and proofreading discipline across both editions are the visible signals of a careful bidder. The Walk Production translation service sits inside the same in-house team that handles the layout work; the production discipline behind bilingual EN/BM corporate writing is set out in our bilingual copywriting guide.

A practical cost note. Bilingual EN/BM addition typically prices at 1.6 to 1.8 times the single-language base, covering translation, BM editorial review, bilingual layout adaptation, and a second proofing cycle. A bilingual edition planned at brief stage is materially cheaper than a Bahasa Malaysia retrofit applied after the English edition is signed off, because the layout grid is designed to absorb the Malay text expansion from the start.

Submission mechanics: ePerolehan, Sistem JET, and hardcopy

Submission mechanics vary by the issuing agency and the platform the tender runs on. The three routes below cover most Malaysian tender submissions in 2026. Read the tender notice for the exact rules in force for any specific bid; submission method is set by the buying agency, not by the bidder.

ePerolehan (federal supplies and services)

Federal supplies and services tenders are managed through ePerolehan, the Ministry of Finance procurement platform. Submission method, the file structure required, and the upload instructions are set out in the specific tender notice; the tender notice controls. Where the notice asks for electronic submission, the technical and commercial documents are typically uploaded as PDF files in the sections the notice specifies, with the file-naming conventions and any digital-signature requirements per the notice.

A practical implication for proposal design: the file structure should be set up to support the upload route the notice asks for. Bookmarked PDFs, searchable text (not a scanned image), file sizes inside the platform’s limits, and clean digital signatures where the tender requires them. The platform’s published rules and the tender notice’s section-by-section upload instructions take precedence over the bidder’s preferred file structure. Late or non-compliant submission may be rejected per the terms of the notice.

The ePerolehan platform itself sits alongside the supplier-side MOF Account; the supplier-registration mechanics and the platform’s account types sit inside our ePerolehan tender guide.

Sistem JET (JKR works tenders)

JKR works tenders are managed through Sistem JET (JKR E-Tender), JKR’s electronic-tender platform. The platform is referenced on the JKR tender portal for current tender notices, document download, addenda, and submission, and is used alongside ePerolehan for the supplier-registration documents that overlap between the two platforms.

The supplier and bid-tracking workflows on JET are separate from ePerolehan even though the underlying eligibility documents (CIDB grade, SPKK, MOF Account) overlap. Submission method, deadline, document format, and any file-size or platform-specific requirements are set out in the specific tender notice. The bid pack inside JET should be prepared against the platform’s published rules and the tender’s submission instructions; preparing the upload package early, rather than against the submission deadline, is the practical discipline most experienced contractors apply.

For the full JKR submission walk-through, including CIDB grading and the works-side document requirements, see our JKR tender guide.

Hardcopy submission

Some tenders, particularly at state level and across a subset of statutory body and GLC procurement, require hardcopy submission in addition to or instead of an electronic upload. The tender notice will specify the pack count required for the evaluation panel, the binding requirement, and the submission address.

Hardcopy submission imposes a separate production calendar against the proposal design timeline. Print, finishing, packing, and delivery to the submission address are sequenced backwards from the submission deadline, with buffer for production overruns, courier delays, and the receipt-stamping process at the submission counter. The exact production calendar for any specific brief depends on the page count, the binding, the pack count, the printer’s queue, and whether bilingual EN/BM is in scope.

For tenders that combine electronic upload with hardcopy submission, both routes carry the same content but the file structure differs: the electronic version is bookmarked and searchable; the hardcopy is bound, paginated, and delivered per the tender’s submission instructions.

Print specifications for the submission pack

Print specifications for a tender submission pack are production variables agreed brief by brief, against the issuing agency’s binding preferences set out in the tender notice, the page count, the pack count, the submission deadline, and the brand’s house standards where one exists. There is no Walk Production default that applies to every tender pack; the same agency issuing two tenders in the same year can ask for different binding, paper weight, and pack count against the specific scope of each one. The variables below describe the production decisions that come up on most Malaysian tender prints; the exact specification on any specific project is confirmed at the printer’s proofing stage and against the tender notice.

The variables above are production decisions agreed brief by brief; the exact paper, binding, finishing, and press route on any specific project is confirmed at the printer’s proofing stage and against the tender notice. Spot UV, hot foil, and die-cut are quoted on top of the base print fee where the brief supports them. For listed-company and GLC tender briefs, FSC-certified paper is a common client request and should be flagged at the brief stage so the print vendor can confirm stock availability and certified chain of custody.

A note on colour reproduction. Per the HP Indigo 12000 datasheet linked above, HP Indigo matches up to 97 per cent of the Pantone range with the HP IndiChrome 7-colour ink set, which is one possible route for short-run tender prints. Confirm against the brand’s exact Pantone references at proofing; some corporate primary colours sit outside the achievable digital gamut and require offset reproduction or a Pantone-substitution decision agreed with the brand owner.

A note on submission-deadline reality. Tender packs are produced under deadline. Rush print and finishing carries a project-specific uplift on the base print fee, agreed at the brief stage. The actual turnaround on any specific rush brief depends on the page count, the binding, the pack count, the printer’s queue, and whether artwork is sign-off ready at brief; describe it brief by brief rather than against a blanket turnaround claim.

For tender briefs that ask for delivery to multiple evaluation panels, the delivery calendar is sequenced backwards from the submission deadline, with buffer for courier delays and the receipt-stamping process at each submission address. Multiple-address delivery is quoted on top of the base print fee against the addresses and the courier method.

What it costs at Walk Production

The bands below are what Walk Production quotes for tender-relevant deliverables. They cover copywriting and design only. Translation, photography, and print runs are quoted separately based on the actual scope, against the language pair, the photography day count, the print quantity, and the finishing.

These bands are Walk Production’s own quoting framework. Smaller agencies, freelancers, and large international firms price differently. The cost drivers inside the band are the ones a bidder can plan against at brief stage:

Page count. Each additional 8 pages adds roughly 15 to 25 per cent to design hours, because more pages mean more layout iterations and more cross-references to reconcile. Page-limit rules in the tender document set the upper bound; price against the actual page count, not against the cap.

Bilingual EN/BM scope. Adding a Bahasa Malaysia edition at brief stage costs 1.6 to 1.8 times the single-language base. Retrofitting Bahasa Malaysia after the English edition is signed off costs more, because the grid has to be rebuilt to absorb the Malay text expansion.

Revision cycles under submission deadline. Most agency packages include two to three client revision rounds. Additional rounds under deadline pressure are quoted on top, against the depth of the changes and the production stage at which they land. Internal alignment on the bid leader, the technical authority, and the commercial authority before brief stage saves revision rounds for design refinement, not internal sign-off.

Print pack count. Pack count is set by the tender notice or the submission instructions and drives the per-unit cost sharply at low volumes. Production route (HP Indigo digital, CMYK offset, or a hybrid) is selected against the pack count, the page count, the finishing, and the budget envelope, agreed brief by brief.

Adjacent Walk Production company profile examples

The three projects below are Walk Production company profile engagements, not tender proposal submissions. The structural and bilingual disciplines they show, dual-track navigation, EN-CN bilingual consistency, and capability-first organisation, are the same disciplines that carry into a procurement-graded proposal document. Project details beyond what the portfolio pages disclose are not shared.

1. OpenSys (M) Berhad: dual-track navigation in a fintech company profile

OpenSys (M) Berhad is a financial technology company in Malaysia, providing services across the telecommunications, utilities, and banking sectors. The audience for the company profile splits into strategic decision-makers and technical evaluators inside the same client organisation, and each reader looks for different content first.

The design approach is dual-track navigation. The corporate profile alternates data-driven service pages with short narrative spreads that explain market context. Sharp triangular overlays, diagonal framing, and a deep plum-to-navy palette with corporate-red accents give the document a technology-forward feel. Icon-based sections reinforce core values visually, and a clean grid keeps technical service descriptions readable across the full document.

The relevance to tender proposal design is structural, not project-specific. A proposal panel that includes both commercial and technical readers benefits from the same dual-track discipline: information architecture that lets each reader find their content without scrolling past the other’s section. The portfolio page shows the company profile work; we do not claim a specific tender outcome from it.

2. Tan Chong Motor Holdings Berhad: bilingual EN-CN corporate profile

Tan Chong Motor Holdings Berhad is a multi-decade automotive group with regional operations across multiple countries. The audience for the company profile is investors, partners, and stakeholders across English and Chinese-speaking markets, with a profile that has to read consistently in both languages without doubling the page count or shifting the visual hierarchy when the reader switches editions.

The design approach is bilingual consistency. The English narrative was developed first, with professional Chinese translation and a parallel layout adaptation produced against the same grid. Both editions follow identical structural and visual standards. A chronological timeline tells the heritage story without overwhelming any single spread, and icon-based sections present core values at a glance. The bilingual grid handles the typographic differences between Latin and Chinese characters without breaking the document’s rhythm.

The relevance to tender proposal design is the bilingual grid discipline, not the project itself. The same production answer, design the grid to absorb the second-language text expansion from the start, applies to EN/BM proposal briefs where Bahasa Malaysia replaces Chinese as the second-language partner.

3. Mega Label: capability-first company profile for a manufacturer

Mega Label is a label-printing manufacturer based in Malaysia, supplying buyers across multiple industries with printed labels for product packaging, retail, and industrial applications. The audience for the company profile is a B2B buyer evaluating a label supplier on production capability, facility scale, and quality standards rather than corporate history.

The design approach is capability-first. The profile is organised around capability areas (production scale, technical printing capabilities, quality standards, sector coverage) rather than around the chronological company story. Facility and product photography sits at the heart of the visual narrative; layout structure keeps technical specifications and process descriptions accessible.

The relevance to tender proposal design is the capability-led structure, not the project itself. The same structural pattern, organising around production scale and quality standards rather than corporate history, can inform the capability and methodology sections of a proposal where the panel is reading for production capability. The portfolio page documents the company profile work; we do not claim it as a tender submission.

More Walk Production engagements sit in our company profile portfolio and our publication portfolio, with corporate-publication work across listed companies, GLCs, and federal-agency clients sitting alongside.

Design decisions that help the evaluator do their job

The five design decisions below are the ones that most directly affect how an evaluation panel moves through the proposal under time pressure. None of them substitute for a strong technical answer; all of them support the review of one by making the document easier to navigate against the published rubric.

Mirror the published evaluation criteria

The strongest single design decision a bidder can take is to organise the proposal under the published evaluation rubric in the tender document, with section headings, page numbering, and the table of contents all aligned. A panel that has to hunt for a specific rubric item works harder on navigation than on the substance of the response. A panel that finds each item in order, on the page it expected, can review the response against the rubric directly.

A practical version of this discipline: if the tender brief lists five evaluation criteria, the technical proposal should have five clearly labelled sections addressing each one in order. If the brief lists the criteria under sub-weightings, the sub-weightings appear as sub-sections under the parent heading.

Apply a single visual hierarchy across the document

Consistent heading levels, paragraph styles, and table formatting across the full proposal signal a careful, single-author document, even when the content is written by multiple contributors. A proposal that reads as if multiple vendors stitched the pages together undermines the credibility the document is meant to build.

Assign one person on the design side to own the final formatting pass, and run the document through a single visual system from cover to back page.

Use data visualisation where the content supports it

Capability timelines, success-metric charts, and comparison tables read faster than dense paragraphs, and they help an evaluator confirm a claim at a glance. A good working rule is to limit visuals to about 20 per cent of each page, which keeps the proposal data-rich without looking like a marketing brochure.

Gantt charts for the project plan, methodology flow diagrams, organisation charts for the team section, and capability-versus-scope tables for the technical response are the visual types that earn their space. Decorative graphics, stock photography, and generic corporate imagery do not.

Design for digital evaluation alongside print

Many Malaysian tenders now include e-evaluation components alongside or instead of hardcopy submission. Design the proposal for screen reading using bookmarked sections, a clickable table of contents, adequate white space, and colour treatments that do not consume toner if a panel member prints the document. The print reader benefits from spine binding and visible page edges; the screen reader benefits from bookmarks and an interactive table of contents. A well-built PDF supports both.

Keep the bilingual edition visually identical to the English edition

For bilingual EN/BM submissions, the layout, typography, and visual hierarchy across both editions should be visually identical. Page numbering, heading levels, table formatting, and graphic placement match across the two editions, even where the Malay text expansion changes line breaks. Inconsistency between languages signals carelessness, which undermines the professionalism the proposal is meant to communicate.

A bilingual edition produced as two separate file sets often reads as two different documents stitched together. A bilingual edition designed on a single grid, with translation and layout adaptation produced together, reads as one document in two languages.

Common tender proposal design mistakes to avoid

Across Malaysian tender submissions in different sectors, the same mistakes recur. None of them are about capability; all of them are about discipline at the design and production stage.

Ignoring the evaluation criteria in the section order. The proposal structure should mirror the scoring matrix. A submission that asks the evaluator to hunt for a Bumiputera disclosure or a Risk Management chapter slows the read down even when the content is strong.

Overdesigning the document. Heavy graphics, stock photography, and decorative elements distract from the technical content and signal a marketing brochure dressed up as a bid. The visual register for a tender proposal is corporate and procurement-graded, not promotional. Keep the design functional.

Inconsistent formatting across sections. When different team members write different sections, fonts, spacing, and heading styles often vary. Assign one person to own the final formatting pass.

Skipping the compliance cross-reference. Every tender document includes a list of mandatory requirements, forms, statutory declarations, and supporting documents. Create a compliance checklist from the tender brief and cross-reference it against the submission before packaging. A single missing form or unsigned statutory declaration can disqualify an otherwise strong proposal.

Leaving the executive summary for last-minute writing. The most important page in the proposal is often the one written under the most time pressure. Draft it early, refine it as the proposal develops, and rewrite it after the technical sections are complete so the summary reflects the actual proposal rather than the brief’s first draft.

Forgetting bilingual at brief stage. Confirm the bilingual requirement against the tender notice at brief stage, not at proof stage. A Bahasa Malaysia edition retrofitted after the English edition is signed off costs more than designing both editions together, and the layout grid has to be rebuilt to absorb the Malay text expansion.

Letting pricing leak into the technical envelope. Under two-envelope evaluation, technical and commercial documents must be kept strictly separate at every stage of preparation. A single RM figure on a methodology page can disqualify a bid on procedural grounds before the substance is read. Draft the two documents as separate file sets from the brief in.

Underestimating the print and delivery calendar. A 15-copy bilingual EN/BM print pack with delivery to three submission addresses is a separate production calendar from the design sign-off. Sequence the print and delivery dates backwards from the submission deadline with a working day of buffer for production overruns and courier delays.

How Walk Production can help

Walk Production has produced tender proposals, tender-graded company profiles, and bilingual EN/BM corporate publications for Malaysian listed companies, GLCs, federal-agency suppliers, SMEs, and regional corporates since 2018. Company profile design, copywriting, and translation services sit alongside annual report design and pitch deck and tender proposal design inside the same 40-person in-house team in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor.

For tender briefs, the practical scope we typically run is the technical and commercial proposal document, a tender-graded company profile for the appendix, bilingual EN/BM layout adaptation where the tender notice requires it, and the print pack delivered to the submission addresses against the deadline. Where the bid presentation includes a capability deck for a shortlist interview, the pitch deck design service handles that alongside the proposal.

Talk to us at brief stage, with the tender notice, the submission deadline, the language requirement, and the print pack count in mind. Browse our company profile portfolio for examples across industries, and the publication portfolio for the wider reporting and submission work that often sits alongside a tender cycle.

Alissa Nazeri is the Account Director for Corporate Reporting at Walk Production, an integrated creative agency in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, Malaysia. She leads the corporate reporting team and manages annual reports, sustainability reports, integrated reports, and tender-grade publications, including impact reporting work for Bank Islam, PIDM, and UNDP Malaysia, and annual reports for Swift Haulage.