Questions Clients Ask

Though there is room for choice in the criteria on which the evaluation is structured, the questions that matter to clients when judging the responses of bidders will in many contexts be broadly similar.

Background and experience of contractors

• Do the contractors have a sound record of achievement in comparable work?

• Have they substantiated claims about their experience with references and contract details?

• Do they have available the facilities to perform the contract effectively and manage it competently?

• Do we have experience of working with these contractors? If so, what do we know about their attitudes to performance and delivery?

• Do they have quality accreditation?

• Does the bid make sensible and constructive points about their contract management responsibilities and their working relationship with our technical and management staff?

Personnel

• Does the bid offer the scale of resources appropriate to the work?

• Is the bid precise about the availability of key personnel, scheduling of time inputs and delivery of outputs? Is it clear exactly who would do the work?

• Do they have the necessary competencies and levels of expertise?

• Are their work responsibilities clearly defined? Are they related appropriately to their competencies?

• What is their employment status with the contractor?

Approach, methodology and work programme

• Does the contractor appear to understand our objectives and the key issues to be addressed?

• Has the work been thought through in the necessary detail? Is there a work plan and a clear statement of the proposed methodology and technical procedures? How well are these related to the scope of services set out in the bid specification? How good is the methodology?

• Does the bid give a balanced response to the work requirements of the contract?

• Does the work programme indicate a sensible and realistic input of time and effort, and is this likely to deliver results on target?

• Are the deliverables identified clearly? Is there an appropriate emphasis on output delivery and recognition of the need for performance monitoring?

• If there are aspects of the work about which the bid specification is prescriptive - in order, for example, to meet statutory requirements or reduce exposure to risk - has the contractor recognized the significance of these points?

• If the bid puts forward a variant solution, does it make a good technical argument for this?

• How has the contractor dealt with responsibilities for the management and direction of the work? Is there a clear and direct line of accountability?

• Does the contractor appreciate the importance of problem-avoiding mechanisms and risk management? Is there an awareness that the work might not go according to plan, and an indication of how the contractor would deal with such situations?

• Does the bid offer added value and multiplier benefits?

• Does it show convincing evidence of professionalism and a sound basis for trust?

Price

• Does the bid demonstrate value for money?

• Is there a transparent statement of the total estimated price of the work and an indication of how it was arrived at?

• Is the price estimate realistic?

• Are there aspects of the price information that suggest economies of effort on the part of the contractor?

Quality of bid presentation

The client's view of the quality and technical merit of a bid is influenced also by the way the document is written and presented and the efficiency with which it performs its function as a business offer:

• Does the quality of the bid suggest hasty preparation, or does it give us confidence that the end product will meet high professional standards?

• Is the terminology in the bid consistent with our specification, or do the contractor's people use a vocabulary of their own? This may show they are focusing on their view of the project rather than seeing it in our perspective.

• How easy is it to find one's way around the document and access essential information?

• Is reading the bid hard work or does it have interesting things to say? Is the bid distinguishable from the last one we read?

• Where we have tried to give bidders advice on the issues to address and factors to consider, have they paid attention to these points?

• Is there evidence of genuine commitment and involvement, or does the bid read like a routine exercise?

• Is the bid uncertain, confusing or evasive on any point?

• Does it simply restate and confirm our view of things, or does it offer good ideas that we had not thought of?

• How well has the contractor used the information given in the bid specification? Has this simply been fed back or dressed up to give the appearance that it is their own work, or have they applied it in ways that show insight and perception and tell us something new?

These factors may or may not appear in a marking scheme, but they are important in communicating professionalism and they do influence the way evaluators respond to the bid. For example, clients often request that bids are kept concise. Though a bid may not be rejected if it is less brief than it need be, failure to understand the meaning of conciseness ('giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words') is likely to colour the client's reaction. Moreover, if the client has instructed that a particular part of a bid must be no more than five pages long, any text that runs over that limit is likely to go unread.

Keep in mind the advice in Chapter 16 about adding value to your bid. If you deal in a detailed and convincing way with a topic that is of particular concern to the client, or if yours is the only bid to offer a bid response matrix or to structure information helpfully, it will become the standard by which the rest are judged. Think of it as keeping the pressure on your competitors. You do not know what good ideas they may put into their bids, so try to get the better of them with good ideas of your own.