How to win contracts you can’t bid for whilst losing bids you should win
Joseph Heller may have invented the term Catch-22 to describe military bureaucracy, but surely even he never endured the maddening reality of modern public sector tendering. Had he done so, his central character wouldn’t have been trying to avoid flying missions; he’d have been frantically trying to prove “relevant experience” for a contract that requires the very experience you can only gain after winning it.
The Experience Paradox
Picture this: you’re reading an Invitation to Tender (ITT) that demands “a minimum of five years delivering identical services to similar organisations in comparable circumstances.” The twist? This is the first ITT of its kind ever issued by this government body. It’s like being asked to provide references from past lives before you’ve even figured out reincarnation.
This is the procurement world’s version of the age-old dilemma: needing a job to get experience, but needing experience to get a job. Only this time the stakes are higher, the deadlines tighter and the evaluation panels seemingly absent the day logic was taught.
Meanwhile, the procurement team sits comfortably behind their desks, having designed criteria so narrowly that only the current supplier could possibly qualify. And then feigning surprise when only one compliant bid arrives.
The Innovation Contradiction
Then comes the “innovation paradox.” Public sector buyers cry out for fresh, transformative solutions to revolutionise their operations. But only if you can prove you’ve successfully delivered the exact same innovation somewhere else.
“We want something completely new and different,” they demand, “but show us case studies of this very thing working perfectly already.”
It’s like boldly insisting on going where no one has gone before, while asking for a travel brochure and glowing Tripadvisor reviews from previous visitors. Innovation, it seems, is welcome. But only if someone else has paid to make it safe first.
The Competitive Tightrope
The evaluation criteria are no less baffling. You must be large enough to handle complex, high-value contracts, yet small enough to offer personal service. You need global reach but deep local knowledge. Cutting-edge technology but years of proven stability. Competitive pricing but premium quality.
In short, you must be Amazon and your local corner shop at the same time.
Evaluators expect a Rolls-Royce solution at Skoda prices, delivered with Ferrari speed and Volvo reliability. They want innovation without risk, detail without overload, and comprehensiveness in as few pages as possible. It’s like being asked to design a vehicle that’s simultaneously a motorcycle and a bus.
The Compliance Conundrum
And none of this matters if you can’t navigate the compliance minefield. Word limits that would frustrate Hemingway. Formatting rules so exacting they’d baffle a Swiss watchmaker. Submission portals less user-friendly than medieval torture devices.
Here’s the cruel irony. Bids that meet every compliance rule to the letter often lack the very creativity and innovation the buyer claims to want. Follow the rules too closely and you reduce your chances of winning. Another Catch-22.
Breaking the Cycle
So how do we escape this procurement purgatory? The answer lies in education, collaboration – and a touch of professional rebellion. We must challenge illogical requirements, help buyers balance risk with practicality, and propose smarter, more flexible ways to meet their needs without perpetuating these contradictions.
Your Mission (Should You Choose to Accept It)
Next time you spot a Catch-22 in a tender, don’t just grumble over coffee. I suggest you question it. Contact the procurement team. Suggest alternatives. Help them see the real world impact of their requirements.
And if they refuse to listen or adjust? Ask yourself “Do we really want a client who thinks like this?”.
I believe that we should all work together to make procurement more logical, fair, and effective. Because great bidding isn’t about jumping through flaming hoops – it’s about building bridges to better solutions for the taxpayer.
