If you think that the procedure chosen by your client will not affect your win chance, think again! It is vital you understand the possible impact.

The Competitive Dialogue has been around for some time and we have seen many instances of its use (and misuse) to date.  We are now getting some practical understanding of the Competitive Procedure with Negotiation and this note outlines how this experience is giving us more insight and warns of the impact this could have on your win chance.

The Background

Firstly, both the Competitive Procedure with Negotiation and Competitive Dialogue have many similar characteristics.  The grounds for their use by a contracting authority are the same.  The contract to be let must be innovative, it must not be capable of sufficiently precise specification at the time of going to the market or it must have risks attached that cannot be priced at the outset.  Each procedure then follows a phased negotiation and dialogue route and is designed to provide competitive pressure on the contenders throughout.

The Differences

The substantive differences between the procedures lie in the fact that the Competitive Procedure with Negotiation is a hybrid procedure, unlike the Competitive Dialogue, and the level of negotiation allowed at final tender stages for the procedures.

Hybrid Procedure

The hybrid nature of the Competitive Procedure with Negotiation can be seen in that a contracting authority can elect to accept a Competitive Procedure with Negotiation bid on the basis of the initial tenders, in the same way it would had done if it had followed a restricted procedure.  It is not forced to go to a negotiation stage.  Of course, this gives the canny supplier the opportunity to provide a complete and convincing response at the initial tender stage, with a reasoned argument for the contracting authority to avoid further spend on pointless continued competition.

Negotiations

However, at the final tender stages, there are also differences in the permitted levels of negotiation:

– Competitive Procedure with Negotiation

– Contracting authorities can negotiate with tenderers the initial and all revised tenders submitted by them in the competition, except for the final tender.

– The minimum requirements and the award criteria cannot be the subject to any negotiation.

Like it or not, the new Public Contracts Regulations 2015 are going to make a big difference to how you bid for Public Sector contracts.  Sixfold is all about how to finesse the Public Sector procurement to create a competitive edge. We have often focused on how the fundamental principles – equal treatment, proportionality and transparency – can be used as a tool to your advantage.

These principles, if anything, are strengthened by the new regulations.  This is particularly true of transparency which the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) has detailed in one of its Procurement Policy Notes. It creates new opportunities and risks that will be of interest to all bid professionals.

Central Government departments have been told that after 1^st September 2015 they must implement additional transparency measures.  Other Government departments have been recommended to follow suit.

Firstly, the procurement team is required to discuss and agree the information that will be made public when the contract is awarded, targeting information that has previously been withheld.  This will extend to (and beyond):

– Your contract price and any incentives.

– The contract performance metrics and how you will manage them.

– The plans for the management of any underperformance and what will be its financial impact.

– The governance arrangements, including governance through your supply chains.

– Your resource plans

– Your service improvement plans

Of course, you might be adamant that you will not agree to the release of this information.  However, ultimately it is the contracting authority who will make the final decision, irrespective of any supplier’s wishes or protestations.

Then, all this information will be uploaded to a publically available section of the department’s website and as the contract progresses, updated so it remains current.

For suppliers who are new to a contract area, this will give them a highly valuable swathe of information from which they can prepare their competitive responses.  For incumbents, this represents another challenge to their ability to retain their contract at the renewal point.  For the Government, this will, undoubtedly have the long term effect of lowering market prices and so don’t expect this requirement to lessen as time goes on!

If you want to know more about how all this may affect your next Public Sector bid and how you can take advantage of these changes, we would be delighted to discuss it with you.  Please give us a call on 01227 860375 and we will be very happy to help.

Sixfold has been called in to help a large company resolve a strange issue with the evaluation of its multi-million pound tender.  The company had been told that it had come second and, in accordance with the procurement requirements, it was sent the scores both it and the winning bidder had been allocated.

However, on examination it was uncovered that the Public Sector evaluation team had added an additional step into the calculation of the quality score.  It had normalised the scores in the same manner that the financial score was normalised.  The problem was that this quality normalisation process was not included in the Instructions to Tenderers.  The financial normalisation process was there, but the quality normalisation was not!  Moreover, the normalisation process altered the ranking of Sixfold’s client from first place to second.  Once the “normalisation” was removed, our client had won!

Sixfold advised the client on the strategy for the debriefing meeting which it had applied for as part of the Alcatel process and then attended the debrief with the client’s team.  The Public Sector team was stunned when its misappropriation of the process was highlighted, but refused to accept that its process was faulty.  Sixfold drafted the formal challenge to the decision processes and the final decision.  We await with interest the outcome, which we will post here once we know it.

The Public Sector bidding processes appear to force you to bid exactly the same proposal as everyone else. This process is set up to allow the evaluators to be able to compare one bid against another as easily as they can. The processes seem to stifle any ability to differentiate your offering and slaps down any attempt at innovation! However, we all know that we must stand out from the other bidders if we are to win the bid.

So what can you offer to beat your competition? It appears that you only have two choices: Offer the same thing as your competitors and hope luck is on your side, or take the risk of offering something different and which might not be evaluated.

If you do offer the same thing as the other competitors, your only option is to underprice them. This is the presumption behind the Public Sector approach to procurement which seeks to minimise cost to the public purse. Moreover, if you are required to bid the exact same as the specification demands, you cannot bring your expertise and innovation which differentiates you in the marketplace to give the client a better result than it can appreciate is available outside of its own thinking.

Change the Specification

So the first rule is to get the specification changed! How do you do this? The best way is to talk to the client before the procurement specification is finished. Educate them about the possible and encourage them to specify it.

The next way is to challenge the specification. If you are clever, you can do this through the formal questions process. However, a better way may be to arrange a meeting with the client under the conditions of an NDA. If you get such a meeting you will need to demonstrate significant advantages, sufficient to get the client to cancel its procurement and restart it with a new specification.

Alternatively, you can submit a variant bid. Often the rules state you can only do this is you also submit a compliant bid as well. Nevertheless, if the reasons behind the variant bid are compelling, this will usually be sufficient to get the attention of the client’s senior staff.

Do It Differently

If the route to change the specification cannot be made to work, then you need to get your thinking cap on and approach the response in a different way. Consider offering the client the same as the specification dictates, but propose:

1. A proposal which meets their procurement process requirements better than anyone else (and, thus, scores more)
2. A solution which is developed or delivered in a different way
3. An approach which delivers better results
4. A solution with more reliability
5. A proposal with more future options
6. A solution with more growth potential
7. A solution with more flexibility
8. A solution delivered faster than specified
9. A solution which is better integrated into the client’s environment
10. A proposal with better after sales support
11. A contract with a better warranty or guarantee
12. A management organisation with more accountability or transparency
13. A proposal with better risk mitigation and risk transfer to the client
14. A delivery with more sizes or better quantities
15. Penalties for under performance
16. Cash flow which better meets the Public Sector funding cycle

Resonate With the Assessors

Finally, for each element of the proposal response think about who will be marking it and make sure the descriptions and examples you provide have the maximum impact upon them. To do this you must consider:

Who (individually and collectively) participates in and benefits from the project (including the citizens and voters!)

1. What you do or deliver best
2. Where you work, produce, deliver, or support your offering
3. When you work, produce, deliver, or support your offering
4. How you work, produce, deliver, or support your offering
5. Why you approach it the way you do and what the benefits will be for the customer

Use your market intelligence and address each of these points as if you were the client. See what a
difference it makes.

If you cannot change it, then identify it, make it clearer or just describe the results more
comprehensively for the customer and how they will benefit from it. That alone can set you apart
and make you a more attractive contractor.

Conclusion

When you offer exactly the same thing as everyone else, you only compete on price. When you offer something different, you compete on value. When you offer the same thing, only you do it in a different way, you gain the ability to offer them something better, without increasing your price.

If the specification is so specific that you cannot have a better offering, then you can still be a better supplier. The customer is always looking for differences, so make them clear. Give the client a clear choice, even if it is for the same deliverable.

Ultimately, you can and will always be different. You have to make that difference clear to the customer and, most importantly, show the benefits of these differences in the proposal in their terms.

How important is winning your next Public Sector Contract to you?  Pretty important?  You bet your life it is!  So how would it help you to have copies of the recent bids your competitors have produced, on your desk, whilst you get stuck into the latest proposal?

It’s got to greatly assist you.  It almost feels like cheating – but it’s perfectly legitimate!  So why is it that so many organisations don’t get hold of their competitors’ recent documents when there is a really easy way to do it.

You get this information just by asking for it, from the department or organisation who received the information in the first place.  They have to send it to you (subject to a few restrictions) within 21 days.

This is all enshrined in the Freedom of Information act which presupposes that any information received by a Public body is, by its nature in the Public domain and any citizen is entitled to have it.  It further presumes that once the citizen (or commercial organisation) gets the information, they will exploit it for commercial purposes.

Of course, there are a few exceptions.  Personal information, information which if disclosed would adversely affect the ability of the country to defend itself or for the parties involved to negotiate in an on-going contractual or legal situation, may be withheld.  But the limitations are very few and the presumption is that the information may and will be released unless it can be shown that the act specifically disallows it.  Hardly any information normally contained within a tender submission is exempt.

So the route is that you ask for the information specifically, e.g. “all of the competing tender responses in the competition for the XYZ contract” and wait for the documents to arrive in the post (or by email).  If they don’t come, after 21 days you can go to the Information Commissioner’s Office Website, fill in a simple form and shortly after that they will make it happen for you.

The corollary for this is, of course, that you competitors have access to your tender responses too.  Indeed, they are probably reading them as you read this!  If you want to know how to stop them, watch out for our next post on this site or start a thread.

Of course, Sixfold has some experience of this.  Andy Haigh’s new book, “Winning Public Sector Contracts” published by The Guardian Professional, covers many of the approaches.  Why not give him a call on 01227 860375 if you want to have a private chat.

As a Bid Director I have been interested for a long time in what it is that motivates bid team members to work extended hours (sometimes 24 hours and longer without a break). Despite being under high pressure they perform willingly, enthusiastically and, usually, for no financial reward above their normal salary. This does not occur in every case. However, as any Bid Manager knows, it happens surprisingly often. It can be accompanied by a grumbling about the poor performance of others who have created the “situation” – but it is usually not as a result of poor performance on their part. However, it seems that the individual feels that they have a personal responsibility to put the situation right and get the bid completed, no matter what level of effort is needed from them.

Representatives of partner and sub-contractor companies, seconded in to the bid team, show this characteristic as well. They will “go the extra mile” to make sure their element of the bid response is as good as they can get it. Their contribution will often contrast with the minimalist response of some staff of the bidding company who are required to provide bid text (because of their specialist role, e.g. HR, Legal or Quality Management) but who are not part of the core bid team.

Take these extraordinary people away from the bid and they can revert to type. They will frequently give an adequate performance but not shine. So what is it in this environment that motivates them to give exceptional levels of contribution? And what can we learn from this which might be harnessed to increase productivity across other environments?

I don’t have all the answers. Nevertheless, I have uncovered some pointers which seem to underlie the boost in engagement levels a bid situation creates:

Finite Problem

A bid has a very clear deliverable, both in content and in quality. One without the other will cause the bid to be lost and the entire team effort wasted. So, members of the bid team usually have a clear understanding of the top level objectives they must respond to from the outset.

This clarity of contribution required and the knowledge that the individual’s bid content really matters seems to generate a high level of individual engagement. If we can provide such clear direction and precision in the value of their contribution in the bid, it ought to create the same motivation if used elsewhere?

Defined Timescales

A bid has a real (and usually short timescale) deadline. Miss the deadline and you have thrown away all the bid work that has been done. Everyone understands that there is little chance of an extension of the response time so makes plans accordingly.

Of course, we are all used to working to deadlines and we know that setting deadlines can improve productivity. However, all too often we also know if the timescales are not met, we will get away with it. We can use an excuse that something else was more important and we know that it will be accepted by our peers and superiors. Knowing that missing the deadline will be a disaster for everyone can provide the impetus we need, particularly as the bid deadline approaches.

I believe that deadlines should only be set if they are truly deadlines. If we set deadlines arbitrarily of without giving the justification for them, the motivation deadlines can create is diminished. So perhaps more contribution will be achieved by stating and explaining deadlines, and then not allowing them to be missed?

Measurement

Only one bid from the competing companies will result in a contract. Every element of each bid will be contrasted against the other bids and the best overall submission will be selected. The bid team are not being measured internally within the business; they are being measured against the best “out there”.

For some people, being the best is important and winning the bid proves they are the best. I believe that if we can give people the opportunity and the support to prove that they “are the best” elsewhere, we will improve their motivation and commitment. I think that for some people, this ability to prove themselves is what drives them to become involved in more bids so that they can repeat the demonstration. If we can tap into this motivation, enhanced contribution must surely follow?

Part of the Team

In the final hours before a bid is handed over to the courier or is uploaded on to some secure web site the pace can become frantic and everyone “mucks in” to do whatever is needed to get the submission completed. When it is all over, there is a real sense of “team” and tired elation. This bonding can continue as enhanced relationships long after the work is finished.

Teams formed at short notice to tackle difficult problems can bring out the best in some (but not all) people. I think if we want more from our employees we should weigh the advantages of task orientated teams over function orientation more carefully.

Of course many people cannot be placed in the environment a bid team creates and nor would they want to be. However, I have seen exceptional performance from otherwise average individuals so many times when they have been place in a bid team there has got to be something special going on. I wonder if anyone else has similar experiences?

You are the incumbent supplier in a Public Sector contract and it has come around for a rebid.  You and your team have been doing a fantastic job for years.  You know you have the client’s staff on your side because they tell you that your team is doing a good job and you have rescued the client’s business from several, indeed many, disasters of their making in recent months.  Relationships are good across both sides of the contract and when issues do arise they are sorted out quickly, with a great deal of mutual support and understanding, no matter where the issues originated from.  Altogether, with such a good track record, winning the rebid will be a cinch.

Or will it?

A very high proportion of incumbent suppliers will lose in this situation, even when the Public Sector client wants the incumbent to win.  Having analysed a few of these situations, I believe the reasons for such high failure rates are based in a few repeated areas of weakness.

Firstly, a good technically competent bid from the incumbent cannot win on its own!

This is because the competition is in it to win it.  The competitors will have predicted the main strengths of the incumbent (that of a proven track record and no new supplier transition costs) and they will have clear strategies to deal with and overcome these claimed advantages – otherwise they would not be bidding!  So the competitors must already have a good technical solution which they will claim has such overwhelming advantages for the client that the transition problems of it moving to a new supplier will be completely vanquished.

Next, the incumbent will be hesitant to propose a truly innovative solution or slash costs.

Why?  To do so would telegraph to the client that you had been “ripping them off” and that you had not shown ability to be as innovative as you would like the client to believe, in the past.  Otherwise it would not have taken a rebid to show these things up, would it?  So it is likely that the incumbent’s solution will just be tinkering with what it has now and real innovation (with all its associated risks) will not be permitted by its account management.
The competitors will not be hampered in this way and they will all be working from the perspective that unless innovation is fully demonstrated, they cannot win.  Radical thinking from within their bid teams will be positively encouraged.
Finally, the incumbent is frequently blind to its own arrogance and its management a bit complacent.  They think, “With such a tremendous track record to date with this client, what more do we have to prove?  The client knows how good we are!” They forget that anything not actually detailed in the response cannot be taken into account.  Even less so if they haven’t specifically identified it to be scored.  Plus, the entire team is blissfully unaware of the competitive intelligence advantage the competitors already have.

The competitors will have been analysing your track record with this client in great detail, through the information freely available through the Freedom of Information Act.  You have put this in the public domain through the minutes of your routine progress meetings with the client.  Every issue and failure has been highlighted.  For your competitors this information is gold nuggets.  Then they will show, on paper in the proposal, how these things would either have been completely avoided if it had been operating the contract, or how it would have resolved the issues with a much better outcome.  They can make all these claims on paper using hindsight, but the incumbent cannot change history, good or bad.
Sometimes I have even seen the incumbent get to the point that it does not bother with any competitive intelligence at all, relying upon the client’s all pervasive appreciation of its qualities to win.  It gambles upon its unique relationship to overcome all.
However, strengths and “uniques” are comparative.  This means you can only play these in your bid if you know what the competitors can offer against each one AND what the value to the client of each is.  It is no good in relying upon some secret insider knowledge either.  Once the evaluators see the difference between what they have asked and “reality” they will reissue the requirement in these areas or accommodate it in their analysis.  This will remove the advantage to the incumbent.  If you are the incumbent with insider knowledge, expect this to happen.

Remember that it is the client’s procurement team’s job to make sure that the invitation to tender documentation meets the fundamental principles of transparency and equality.  You might have helped them to put together the specification.  However, it is their job to sanitise the requirement so it does not suit any one supplier, particularly the incumbent.  Then they have to make sure that the evaluation rules are applied correctly and any bias (for or against you) is removed.  If they don’t, then the award decision may be subject to challenge and the procurement stopped, at least for the time it takes to resolve the issue.  Only a losing supplier wants this to happen; no one else does and the procurement team will do everything in their power to stop any potential for challenge before the competition is begun.

So, if you are the incumbent, what can you do?  Well, unless you have a truly competitive proposal, nothing!

If you want to retain the client, you must approach the tendering competition expecting every other competitor to claim and then seek to prove that it can do the job better than you have done and be cheaper.  So begin work on this basis.
Brainstorm all the proof points you have of your relevant capabilities in two sessions.  One for evidence of how well you have served the client and how well you know them and their needs.  A separate session for proof points of corporate capability relevant to the new requirements.  Ensure that these are populated in your response against questions in which these proof points can affect the scoring.

Look for real innovation and don’t be afraid to use it.  Slash your costs as far as you can (but always balance this against the impact on your quality score).  Use your knowledge of the client and what it really wants and come up with a game changer that the competitors will not foresee and which will truly impress the client.  Treat the competition as if your most feared competitor had been the incumbent and had performed well.  Then show the client that you really are the better choice.