What are the common pitfalls and risks of tender document review and feedback?

Lack of prioritisation! When a tender is received, we break it down and distribute it to various subject matter experts for completion. This is on top of their day-to-day operational job; so it is not always prioritised - meaning the tender team must then constantly "chase".

- Failing to review the tender document can lead to a misunderstanding of the project scope which is leading to waste of time and may result in the submission of a tender that does not meet the customer’s needs. - Depending on the size and scope of the project, there may be multiple stakeholders involved. Failing to consider their needs and requirements can lead to a tender that does not meet their expectations.

Lack of time will cause poor review. Lack of expertise causes inaccurate assessment. Attention to legal and compliance clauses.

Absolutely time matters in tenders' submission so it's really important to read carefully tender document requirements and understand what is needed and what is to prioritize.

From a customer point of view, the lack of time often means lack of attention when designing the bid documents and a poor planning. The tender design needs to align business needs with the required information, and this means also estimate the quantity and the complexity of the information asked to the bidders against the importance/priority of each aspect ... and multiplying these for the numbers of the potential bidders. This helps to add to the tender goals also goals of efficiency and effectiveness and to define a lot before we receive the bids the effort and the specific skills required for the team that will review the bids. We don't find out "what" and "how much" the bidder will send to us, we design and plan it.

A team should be composed by three main roles: - a leader of the team - the experts of the tender arguments/subject - the experts of tender management activities with the role of activities support and project mgmt. support Often a team is thought only for the experts, like subject matter experts ... but they are experts in their field of knowledge but not in how the tender and the review of bids must be performed and managed. So the tender activity experts are fundamental roles for: - operative activities support (documents management, relationship with the formal roles, etc.) - audit role, supporting the team to run their activities and to express their review in the best formal way - project management and coordination

Very important to know who is doing what , knowing from where to get the right documents , dates of expiration. It is very helpful to use a checklist for documents needed during submission and after tender is temporarily awarded.

Each step of the process is only as reliable as the step that proceeds it. A failure to properly articulate your requirements into the tender documentation is setting the process up to fail. Gaps can appear, followed by having to make assumptions, followed by inaccurate scoring, and ultimately a failed evaluation process.

Objectivity can be fostered using 3 methods together: 1) clearly declaring (in 1. written, 2. objective, 3. detailed and 4. auditable way) what is not ok and why, referring only on 1. facts, 2. declared information (what is not declared isn't know, no matter if it's on other public or known sources like websites or previous contracts) 2) comparing the judgement for each bid with the judgement expressed for each other bid, to assure common considerations and judgement parameters 3) having in the team someone that can review the judgements to help to assure formal clarity and objectivity, with an "external" point of view, like a pre-auditor

This is important both for the customer side and for the bidder side. Clarity of wording, specifications, constraints foster better bids and to easily check the coherence of bids against what we said and prescribed. A pitfall could be also the use of terms that are commonly used internally to our organization but that are not so clear or that have other meanings externally. The same with the bidder, they must follow the customer's instructions and use the Q&A phase to ask for any interpretation. The bidder itself should not use terms not universally clear or take for granted interpretations or not talk about important aspects. What isn't written is not known, the bidder can't pretend to the customer to put them for the bidder

Na minha experiência, a falta de clareza na proposta é uma armadilha frequente que pode comprometer seriamente a eficácia de um documento de licitação. A proposta precisa ser fácil de entender para transmitir claramente o valor e os benefícios oferecidos. Jargões, siglas e termos técnicos muitas vezes tornam a leitura difícil e confusa. Além disso, erros ortográficos e gramaticais, bem como uma formatação inconsistente, podem desviar a atenção do conteúdo essencial. Manter uma linguagem simples e direta, e revisar cuidadosamente o texto, é crucial para garantir que a proposta seja clara e legível.

If anything in the client's documentation is unclear or you have any other concerns that you believe could jeopardise your bid then ask for clarification, in writing, at the earliest opportunity.

FOR BIDDERS: the attention to alignment should always be considered: 1) A constraint! Not following a customer's tender instructions, forms, notes, data formats, etc. it's what makes a bid document not valid even before reading its content. 2) A test of the bidder! Beside the tender correct execution, no customer wants a supplier not following its instruction even before the contract is awarded. An advice: read the tender documentation with you subject matter experts AND your tender experts, and use the Q&A for every clarification you need! FOR CUSTOMERS: of course you put your max attention in the design phase of the tender, but put also your max attention to the Q&A with bidders, they are also the final test of your design activities!

Lack of Technical Knowledge Another common pitfall is the lack of technical knowledge in respect of the tender scope. The whole idea of a tender submission and the team bringing it together is to ensure the response is prepared for the reader and evaluator of that response. Yet technical skills to do that seem to become lost, instead regard seems to be placed on bringing fancy responses with clever nuances that do not really respond to the question. It would seem that there should be a preference to include technical skills in a bid team so that specific relatable responses can be made. The top measure when responding to technical requirements should be "Have I actually read the requirements and adequately responded to them"?

This depends on the tender approach. A tender could have an iterative approach, that can synthesize as follow: 1) customer: asks for proposal 2) bidders: delivers proposal 3) customer: reviews proposals, gives feedback to the best bidders and excludes the others; 4) restart from point 1 (in this case it'll be "asks for a proposal review") until the number of bidder is the minimum defined by the tender approach. In this case the feedback is a stage of the iteraction. The tender approach could be one-way as follows: 1) customer: asks for proposal 2) bidders: delivers proposal 3) customer: reviews proposals 4) customer: select the best bidders and excludes the others. In this case the feedback is after to help bidders for the future tenders.

Proper communication with the client or managing authority (if it is a public sector tender) is key in clarifying uncertain points regarding tender documents submission. Do not assume anything, ask a question to be 100% sure. It can save you time (and money) !