There are many solutions for a great tender submission meldunn.com.auOne of
great mysteries of “open” competitive tendering process is that each of us has experienced defeat. What mystifies us is that there must have been a mistake – we had best solution. Of course we did. So did other three unsuccessful tenderers as did, we hope, successful one!
So, consider this hypothetical tender, which simply asks for a proposal to “make following equation true by only adding one line to it”:
I X = V I
Simple enough. Prepare your team to consider what is being asked. Review all documentation to ensure that nothing has been overlooked. And prepare your tender. You do this, and your tender response is simply:
I X (does not equal sign) V I
Compliant. One line added to equal sign to make equation true and correct. Clearly winning tender – or is it?
As with all projects and activities, there may be many approaches that could be implemented to lead to same minimum requirements. And this is good and vitally important if we genuinely seek solutions that create long-term sustainable benefits. Still, we can do more than just meeting ‘minimum requirements’ to ensure compliance.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that we challenge thinking that is presented in design, tender documentation, donor policy etc, not just to prepare a response that ‘meets’ stated requirements. If we did not do this, then tendering process would simply come down to a price comparison, which does not necessarily translate to best solution to problem.
So who is “we” to take all this responsibility? Is it us as individuals? Is it managing contractors? Agencies? Clearly, it is all of us in whatever role we are adopting as it relates to a tender or activity in question.
The tendering process should remain directly connected to activity’s implementation and its results. So during preparation of submission some key questions need always be asked:
•Why are we doing this •Who are we targeting •Where will any impac be realised •How will we know •How would we measure it
And there are probably many more, all of which have something in common – starting with end in mind.
This responsibility to ask key questions does not rest solely with those preparing tender response. Clearly it forms part of any methodology to design an activity, and it really should also be part of tender assessment process if there is a genuine commitment to finding best approach to any activity. I once received some ‘feedback’, and I am sure I am not alone here, that “but it wasn’t asked for in tender”. This is unacceptable and indicates a lack of consideration to question “why are they proposing this?” It may still have been judged to be not desired approach, however merely dismissing alternative approaches because [possibly] it wasn’t thought of in design phase, is not being true to cause.
