Many start-up firms or newly appointed bid commissioners often bid with marketing thinking, replacing the term "tactical" with "dourful" and ultimately the dilemma of high input, low-cutter rates and even frequent scrapping。
Mistake i: bibliographic tendering - absence of project selection cases
A secondary qualification architectural and decoration company participated in the bidding of 47 projects throughout 2023, covering a variety of types, including hospitals, schools, writing buildings, factories, etc., with only one final bid and less than 2. 2 per cent. Worse still, the direct cost of their bids (bidding production, staff travel, deposit occupancy) was $860,000, and the indirect cost resulted in a net loss on the bidding boards throughout the year。
Depth profile
The core problem for the enterprise was the lack of a bid decision-making mechanism, which was caught in the trap of "check-in-the-pot". From a professional point of view, each bid should be an investment decision that needs to be assessed:
The essence of blind bidding is to mask strategic laziness with tactical diligence. "no vote" is more important to a rookie than "no vote."。
Suggested improvements
Establishment of a "bid decision-making matrix" with hard rejection items (e. G., inconsistent qualifications, blacklists of owners, signs of visible siding) and sub-evaluations (project size, profitability, competition intensity, strategic value), only those that meet the threshold enter the bidding process。
Mistake ii: commercial light technologies - program homogenization cases present
An information company is involved in bidding for a city's smart government platform project (budget 28 million, comprehensive rating). The enterprise's commercial offer was extremely competitive, but the technical programme part directly applied the previous project template, modifying only the project name and the owner's unit name. During the bid evaluation process, experts found that in their technical programmes, names and non-functional modules in other cities even appeared, with technical scores of only 12 (out of 40) and the first round being phased out。
Depth profile
Against the background that the composite rating has become the mainstream evaluation method, technical markers tend to have a weight of 40-60 per cent and are the core variable for determining whether or not to win. The most common cognitive errors by new players include:
Template dependency: technical markers are considered "almost good" , neglecting the uniqueness of the project and the individualized needs of the owner; technical language is empty: there is a large number of qualitative descriptions such as "advanced " first-class " , lack of verifiable technical parameters and implementation programmes; programme implementation is heavy on implementation: content such as project organization, progress plan, quality assurance, risk planning, etc. Is ignored。
Tens of tenders were reviewed daily by evaluation experts, and homogenization programmes were easily identified and processed with low ratings。
Suggested improvements
To promote the principles of technical standards of the one plan:
Mistake three: eligibility for "stepline" declaration
An environmental engineering company participated in a tender for the purchase of equipment for a sewage treatment plant. The solicitation documents require the project manager to "perform at least one project of a similar size within the last three years (based on the contract and completion certificate)". The company's project manager did have an eligible project, but provided a copy of the acceptance certificate and no building unit stamp. The bid evaluation committee based its determination of non-conformity on the express requirement of the solicitation documents "that the material be stamped or otherwise not approved" and proceeded with the invalid tender。
Depth profile
The freshman's understanding of the solicitation documents often stays in "presumably in line", and the bidding is a "zero tolerance" game. The following are very easily triggered:
The more hidden risk lies in the clause ""and the substantive provision. Any deviation from the terms "or must" in the solicitation documents could lead to the abandonment of the bid。
Suggested improvements
Establishment of a system of "reading lists of solicitation documents":
The solicitation documents are read in person and are marked in three colours: red (waste item/qualification item), yellow (description item/critical technical parameter), green (general clause); preparation of a self-assessment form requiring a three-tier signature by the person, the reviewers and the person in charge; written clarification of the vague clause (e. G. Definition of "similar project") during the answer period, with no room for subjective assumptions。
Mistake iv: a rigid pricing strategy - a case of neglect of evaluation methods
The lowest evaluated tender method is used for a municipal project. Enterprise a, in order to take over the market, offered an 18 per cent lower price and became the first winning candidate. However, during the period of publicity, the evaluation committee received challenges from other bidders, which were verified to be below cost and could not provide a reasonable explanation. In the end, enterprise a was disqualified from the award and included in the record of misconduct, and participation in bidding in this area was prohibited for one year。
In another case, project b used the composite score method (30 for price, 40 for technology and 30 for business). Enterprise c offers the lowest price, but the technology option is flat, with the final price being only 2 points above the second, while the technology score is 15 points below, with the combined fourth ranking, which failed。
Depth profile
First-hand offers are often at two extremes: either "low-priced bid" ignores costs and risks, or "cost plus" ignores competition patterns and scoring rules. The professional offer strategy should be based on:
Suggested improvements
Create a quote simulation model:
Zone five: unmanageable process management — breakdown of the consequences
An enterprise participates in an annual centralized procurement bid for a firm, which is well prepared, well planned and priced. However, at the opening site, when the tender agent inspected the seal, it was found that the original tender document was sealed in the same envelope as the copy, while the solicitation document expressly required that "the original copy be sealed separately". The agent refused on the spot, and the enterprise did not enter the evaluation chain. Similarly, "low-level errors " , such as missing signatures by legal representatives, missing ride seals, late billing of bonds, etc., account for a very high percentage of new bids。
Depth profile
The preparation and presentation of tender documents is a high-level, time-sensitive and fault-free process. Among the problems that frequently arise from new sources are:
Suggested improvements
Implementation of the standardized tender operations process (sop):
Inverted schedule: preparation, auditing, signature, stamping, sealing, transport nodes based on the cut-off time; three-tier system of review: self-review by author (accuracy of content), review by department head (coherence of strategy), final review by bid manager (format compliance); block-check list: cross-check list of all formal elements (signature page, stamp location, sealing requirements, number of copies, electronic carriers, etc.), cross-checked; set buffer time: in principle, all production is completed 24 hours in advance of the interception and emergency processing time is reserved。
Mistake vi: neglecting intelligence analysis - information asymmetric programme deviations
A consulting firm participates in tenders for industrial planning projects in a development area. Its programme is technologically advanced and team-based, but it ultimately fails a local consulting firm whose qualifications and team appear to be weak. Afterward, it turns out that the core demand in the area is not "technology-advanced," but "programmability" and "accuracy with local enterprises". The winning proposal details the cooperation framework with the three local leading enterprises, which precisely hit the owner's pain spot. The bidders' programmes are too "high" and lack specific analysis of local industrial ecology。
Depth profile
Tenders are not "closure" tests, but information warfare and cognitive warfare. The mistakes of the newcomers are:
Suggested improvements
Create a bid intelligence system:
Summarizing the sentence: the error zone of the newer bid is essentially a reflection of cognitive deficiencies: strategic short-sightedness (blind bidding), lack of professionalism (lack of technical/commercial/legal capacity) and mismanagement (lack of process and wind control)。
The trick is to upgrade the bid from "personal experience driven" to "organizational capacity driven":
Establishment of an enterprise bid management: from project selection, document interpretation, programming, review and submission to the successful tender complex to form a closed loop management; development of complex talent: tenderers need to combine technical understanding, business sensitivity, legal risk awareness and data analysis capabilities; sinking of organizational knowledge assets: establishment of a bid database, database of materials, casebooks to translate individual experience into organizational capacity; introduction of a revisiting mechanism: structured discs after each bid, whether successful or unsuccessful, to identify points for improvement。
The bidding market is moving from "relationship competition" to "capacity competition". For starters, circumvention is the bottom line and building systems capacity is the core competitiveness. It is only by considering each bid as a precise investment decision and a professional value that it can continue to prevail in intense market competition。
What do you think
