It happens quite often. I get a phone call from a senior member of an organisation who has recently sent off a big bid for a Public Sector opportunity. The core of the message is “They haven’t scored our bid properly. We always get 22 or 23 out of 40 in the quality marks. However, we only got 19 this time. There is a Machiavellian plot within their team to deny us this opportunity!”
Even from this short conversation the astute bid professional will get everything that this implies, without needing many more details.
Firstly, the organisation is probably quite competent in its ability to deliver the services and products required. They have lodged many similar bids and won some of them. Indeed, they have enough win/loss results to be able to calculate their average quality marks.
Next, with less than top quality marks expected, they have created a proposal to win on price. This implies that they have an organisation which has low profit margins and a culture which supports this.
It follows that their bid response will have been heavy on “technical” detail. It will fill the pages of the bid with process descriptions, roles, responsibilities and specifications. There will be a lack of (and often a complete absence of) all the stuff that gives the evaluator confidence that this bidding organisation is the best for the job.
There will be no references and no proof points in the text. There will be no indication that the bidder understands the real issues the prospective client faces. Overall, there will be nothing that tells the client “we have the best solution and it is best for you because …”! It will be up to the evaluator to work this out – if they can be bothered.
Finally, it shows that the bid team had not actually read the scoring system description in the ITT. If they had they would have seen that technical perfection can only ever score medium marks on its own. To score high marks, technical perfection is only the starting point. Within the text the evaluator must also be able to find:
- Some demonstration that the bidder understands the problems
- A justification of the choices the bidder has made
- The benefits to the client that will result from this approach
- Reference to where this solution has worked (successfully) before
- Where this bidder has done it before (in a similar situation) and the result
If the evaluator cannot get assurance on all these points from the written words in the bid, he or she is not allowed to give a higher score.
Underpinning all of this is that the bid will have been all about selling what they had, to the client. It will not be about solving the client’s issues in the best possible way. My test for this is to see if the first word in the first paragraph is the bidder’s company name. If it is, this indicates that the entire bid is not focussed on the client.
Of course, as astute bid professionals, we would never fall into any of these traps. Or would we?
If any of this resonates with you as an issue you may sometimes encounter in your low scoring bids, then please give us a call for a no obligation chat. You never know, something we cover may cause you to win the next bid when, otherwise, you would have lost it! Give us a try on 01227 860375 and win the next bid.
