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.

I have been around and about proposal writing for many years. I have seen fabulous successes and devastating failures all attributed to the quality of the written word. And in that time I have learned a few lessons. They seem so obvious to me.  However, whenever I meet up with a new bid team (and sometimes even experienced bid teams who aren’t doing so well), I see the same problems.

It’s a delicate decision to challenge a lost bid decision and possibly alienate yourself as a “troublemaker”. Should you acquiesce or fight for what’s right for everyone?

I don’t think that there is an easy answer to this. However, I think that often, bid teams get their answer wrong, back off a justifiable challenge and potentially lose business that should have been theirs.

Commercial Competitions

The decision whether or not to challenge a bid competition result will normally rely upon a fairly forensic examination of the circumstances. My expertise lies, most recently, in Public Sector procurement. But if I look at my past experience across both commercial and Public Sector bidding I perceive a large difference: in a commercial bid, if you are not selected by the client, that’s tough and there is usually not much you can do about it. Unless, of course, you can play heavyweight politics, in which case, anything is possible!

Can the client’s staff then hold a grudge in such a situation? Of course they can and this is part of the balance you must consider when you decide to push back on their decision. If the decision is altered in your favour, then someone in the client’s staff will be hurt by it. Part of your strategy will be to work out who, and how much influence they will have now and in the future. Then you can do a pain/gain calculation and plan accordingly.

Public Sector

In the Public Sector, things are very markedly different. The first point is that the adherence to the process is more important than the outcome. If you don’t believe me, try lodging your bid ten minutes after the cut off! The next point is that if something has truly gone awry with the process, and the wrong result has been declared, you will get very little opposition when you highlight this from the majority of the Public Sector staff. Excepting, that is, those who either sought to manipulate the process to meet their own agenda or, just “screwed it up” without any intention to favour any bid. The general perception will be one of “it is good that this process fault has been identified so we can prevent any reoccurrence”. It may be difficult and complex to recover the situation, but the supplier who identified the issue will normally, by the wider Public Sector audience, not be seen as a troublemaker.

Nevertheless, an unsubstantiated accusation that an error has occurred will be treated differently. Unless the process aberration is obvious, then the complainant’s challenge might well be seen as “sour grapes”. This will always be the case if the complaint is based upon, “this is not the best outcome for the taxpayer”, or “the decision is wrong because we have the better product and our price was lower”! You cannot challenge on the basis of common sense or fairness; only that the process has been misapplied.

Discovering the Details

Of course, if you have been told you have not won the bid, you will have asked for a debrief. After all, if you have lost the bid, the lessons learned are the ONLY return you will get on your investment. You owe it to your business to recover at least something from the investment it has made in the bid process. Also, if you have your suspicions that something has gone wrong with the process, this is the point where you might be able to confirm these suspicions.

If your suspicions are confirmed in the debrief, and you could not be sure of this beforehand, then a formal challenge to the procurement team will halt the contract award whilst the problems are resolved under the “Standstill” or “Alcatel” arrangements. In my experience, this is the point that most easily and most often resolves the bidder’s problems satisfactorily.

Timing

On the other hand, you may already know exactly what the problem is and who is responsible. Now your activity begins with one of determining the timing. If you knew, or should have known, about the process error 30 days or more beforehand, you can forget a challenge. They have got away with it (except in some very specific circumstances). The 30 day time limit rule is well established and there is case law to back this up. However, if the discovery is before the 30 day point, then you have the time remaining up to 30 days to lodge a legal challenge in the courts.

In other words, you cannot “bank” an issue you knew about early in the bid cycle and then initiate a challenge to the decision only after you find you have not won. You have got to act within the 30 days.

Catching Them Out

But let us presume that you have caught some Public Sector official blatantly misapplying the rules. In a recent case, at the debrief it became evident that the procurement team had weighted the evaluation scores in a different way to that which they had set out in the bid documents. This altered the total scores to the point that the positions of the top two bidders were reversed. This case is well known to me and what happened here was that the challenge was immediately lodged when this became apparent.

If you mount a challenge, you have to ensure you have the corporate resolve to see the challenge through. Moreover, you and your corporate management must be very clear about the outcome you are prepared to accept. In the case above, the Public Sector procurement team acknowledged they had made a mistake. However, they offered to rerun the competition again and the aggrieved second place competitor accepted this offer, even though its bid had clearly won under the published rules. So all the three original competitors settled down to produce another full proposal. The final result, the third place competitor from the first round did much better in the second competition and won. Neither of the two organisations whose bids led in the first evaluation got the prize.

Of course, having proved it had clearly won under the rules of the competition if they were fairly applied, the disputing bidder in the first competition could and should have stood its ground, and demanded the contract be awarded in accordance with the corrected evaluation result.

Lack of Resolve

So why did this bidding team’s management back away from exercising its right to get the contract? Probably because someone in a senior position was worried about what the impact of making such waves might be. The organisation had other Public Sector contracts and it is likely the management was worried about its reputation if it challenged too hard. So the safest way forward may have appeared to be, to accept that the evaluators had recognised their errors and then give them the let-out of allowing a recompetition. At least this would give their bidding team the opportunity to have their bid re-evaluated. Then they would win as they had before, wouldn’t they?

The outcome was that this bidding team paid for not one, but two, entire bids and then got nothing in return.

Reputation Damage

Let us suppose that the bidding team had stood its ground, insisted on the first competition being re-evaluated properly and then been awarded the contract. And let us suppose that the Public Sector team were mightily embarrassed that their incompetence had been exposed, to the point that they wanted to get revenge on the bidding organisation. What could they do?

If they interfered with the evaluation of the next bid, their chances of being exposed would be high and unlikely to be successful. Their peers would have known they had been caught because the process had been misused once before and would be looking out for any similar future embarrassment. The bid team, also, would be reviewing the details of the process very carefully and ready to complain if anything went wrong. The risks would be far too great to get revenge and it is more likely that this next competition would be run more fairly and with greater regard to the process than ever before.

If the client had other contracts with the same Public Sector body which were being performed satisfactorily, why would the Public Sector staff involved with them allow others in their department (who had been caught interfering with their own procurement processes) have any involvement with these other projects? After all, they were caught before and there would be a high likelihood of them being caught again if they did something untoward.

Of course, senior and influential Public Sector staff can, individually sway things for or against any supplier. But what they can do outside what is “reasonable” is very limited on their own. Ultimately, the risk to the bid team of a robust but fair challenge to a faulty decision would be very unlikely to have any substantial impact on any other contract, now or in the future because the processes don’t permit it.

Summary

So, in summary, I believe that if you have a legitimate grievance in a Public Sector competition you should evaluate the tactical advantages of a challenge and if it is decided to proceed, pursue the challenge as robustly as possible until you get the outcome you want. Of course you have to recognise the 30 day rule and make a decision to meet that timescale. Also, you should never try to challenge for any other reason than the process has been misused. But once you have taken the decision to proceed, don’t wimp out once things start to go your way.

It is a big step to decide to challenge the decision when you have bid for a Public Sector contract and you have not won. The immediate thoughts will cover, on what grounds can I challenge, how do I make the challenge and how will making the challenge affect my current and future business with the Public Sector body concerned.

Sign up to our newsletter to receive access to this and other exclusive white papers.