Rigid compliance in the tendering process: the best way to ensure a level playing field for bidders, or a fast track to delivery problems and contract disputes?
To frame this gnarly question a different way: what should happen when a would-be contractor realises that the technical solution they’ve been asked to bid against isn’t feasible?
This is a real dilemma. Propose an alternative solution that will work and there’s every chance your bid will be deemed non-complaint and automatically disqualified.
Real World Issues
This isn’t some hypothetical thought-experiment, by the way. Our in-house design reviews of new tenders frequently identify practical concerns. These can range from unnecessary complication and cost (which is relatively easy to deal with), to proposed solutions that simply won’t work because of site constraints or ground conditions. This can be especially true around piling and ground engineering activities where the multi layered supply chain effect can be ineffectual at tacking the issues with a flawed specification until it is too late for all involved.
It might seem tempting for a bidder to adopt an approach of ‘that’s what you asked for so here’s our price.’ But what does that say about them? Either they lack the technical competence to identify an unfeasible solution, or they’re content with arguing about the details and the impact on project outcomes once they’ve secured the contract (knowing it was never going to work).
We care about our reputation too much to ever submit a proposal that we’re not confident will work. And yes, sometimes that means our ‘non-compliant’ bid is summarily rejected.
The Balance Between Compliance and Effectiveness
For a procurement team, rigid rules, consistency and compliance are there to demonstrate fairness. As bidding organisations, we also want this. And it’s probably not feasible for teams to evaluate multiple different technical solutions to the same problem and come up with a decision that wouldn’t be open to challenge.
But perhaps there’s a need for a degree of common sense flexibility? A less transactional tendering process would be one way forward, where there’s an opportunity to draw on specialist expertise before project specifications are set in stone.
Until we get there, Suttle Projects will be holding fast to our principles and basing tender responses on practicality and cost-effectiveness, following a thorough technical review of the requirements. Our core belief is in simplifying projects wherever possible – it seems logical for this to start with the specification we agree to deliver.
Head over to our information and insights section below to find out more.
