While I’m known in the public infrastructure sector
for my specialisation in non-priced-based bid
processes, I remain keenly aware of issues in the
industry’s price-based bidding sphere.
I also remain keenly aware that bidders attribute too many
bid losses to “being beaten on price”.
Some years ago, Microsoft and one of its CRM software
partners conducted a survey of UK construction company
executives. These executives were asked why they though
they lost bids – and why they thought they won them.
In almost every instance, these seasoned industry
representatives believed their tendering victories were due
to the outstanding job they had done when it came to
understanding the client and the specific requirements of
the project. But these same respondents believed the only
reason they ever lost a bid was because they came in too
high on price!
Let me tell you one of the reasons for this flawed logic.
In my experience, there is a reluctance by bid teams to
admit that maybe they lost to a competitor not on price, but
because that competitor had done its homework more
thoroughly . . . whether by virtue of relationship or by virtue
of background research.
As a bid strategist, I see it as a very simple equation:
The more thoroughly you’ve gotten to know the client
organisation and the backdrop to the project, the more
chance you have of lining up your strengths with the
(often intangible) requirements of the client and the project.
The more deeply you understand your client’s world and
issues, the more opportunity you ultimately have to
demonstrate your all-important compatibility with the client
organisation, its culture and the project objectives.
To achieve this, you need to go beyond the technical
specifications, selection criteria and other requirements of
the client’s Request for Tender (RFT) documentation. You
must also understand the critical subjective and emotive
factors at play in the client’s decision-making process.
Here’s a Simple Fact
The more high-quality questions you ask and the more
information you seek (preferably pre-probity), the better
your position when you sit down to produce your bid.
Sounds obvious.
But – while for design, construction and other engineering
discipline professionals, interpreting the technical
requirements of a project is “second nature” – the client’s
world is far more complex than the specifications and
selection criteria cited in the RFT documentation. It’s an
environment flavoured by stakeholder politics, past
experiences and future visions.
Here are three powerful starting points to help you
assemble a picture of that broader environment:
1) Where Have They Been?
Not many $1+ billion construction/public infrastructure
projects get to RFT stage without substantial debate and
political history. You need to go beyond today’s headlines.
Have you trawled through and studied every single
related policy / background document you can lay your
hands on? The less glamorous side of the business
development process, this makes for a genuinely deep
understanding of the client’s unspoken influences. It’s the
sort of knowledge that hits hot buttons and quells fear
factors, if you know how to align it with your own strengths.
2) Where Are They Going?
If it’s a public sector project, how is the societal role of that
client organisation evolving? What are the community forces
being brought to bear upon it? If it’s a private sector client,
what’s happening in the commercial environment in which it
functions? What trends and predictions are shaping its future?
Are the client’s (short and long-term) organisational plans
known or available? What implications exist within these for
the future usage or public perception of the project?
3) Who Are They?
Every organisation has its own unique culture. Why is this
relevant to you, the bidder? Because – inherently – the client
organisation knows the ways in which they’re easy – and the
ways in which they’re difficult – to work with (even when
they won’t admit to these factors).
You need to (diplomatically) give them due comfort
that you will maximise the benefits of the former, while
accommodating the latter. Whatever the focus on budgetary
issues, one thing is certain: The bidder that demonstrates it
can work the most effectively (and painlessly) with the client
parties will be looked upon with great favour.
