The Auditing Procedure


Whether or not your firm has quality accreditation, it is important to maintain a commitment to continuous improvement in the quality of bids and in the procedures for their development and production. Like all aspects of quality assurance, this commitment needs to be driven from the top down, encouraging a sense of ownership of the bid so that everyone who contributes to its preparation is aware of the relationship between quality and competitiveness and shares a personal responsibility for the standard of the document.

One of the most useful things you can do to strengthen your competitiveness is to adopt a systematic practice of auditing your bids. The procedure has of course to be fitted in with other work priorities, but it need not be an arduous task if you adopt a methodology like the one suggested in this chapter, and you will not regret the time you invest in it. The aim is not so much to determine whether the way you go about tendering conforms to defined standards and procedures - though it can be used for that purpose - as to look back at your bids from a client's viewpoint and ask: if you were a client receiving this bid, what impression would you get about its competitiveness and professionalism?

An auditing procedure as outlined here will provide a baseline for measuring improvements in bid quality by enabling you to:

  • assess the extent to which your bids are consistent in their approach;

  • identify recurring problems and shortcomings that may be impairing their quality;

  • measure the impact of your bids against the factors that represent added value in the eyes of your clients;

  • gauge the overall scope for improvement in the development, content and presentation of bids.

The auditing procedure, outlined in Figure 24.1, involves the following steps:

  1. Choose a representative sample of bids, including some that won and others that lost.

  2. Examine the bids as if you were the client, reviewing their content and presentation against a set of audit parameters that reflect client priorities rather than your own concerns. For each parameter, draw up a set of key questions. The list that follows sets out audit parameters and questions that will be common to most contexts and that mirror the concerns addressed in the quality management process advocated in Chapter 8, but they are viewed here in a broader perspective and from the client side of the bidding process.

  3. Assess how well or badly each bid performs in response to these questions. You can do this on a subjective basis by judging performance as 'high', 'medium' or 'low' (Figure 24.2); or you may wish to develop a more objective and quantitative approach. For example, if each question allows a 'yes/no' response, you can mark the bids by awarding 1 point for a 'yes' response, and 0 points for a 'no' response.

    click to expand
    Figure 24.1: Outline of Auditing Procedure

    start figure

    Presentation

    The assessment covered five bids, denoted here as a to e.

    Item

    High

    Medium

    Low

    Overall appearance of bid

    a b c d e

    Binding

    a b d

    c e

    Cover

    a b c d e

    Page layout

    a b c d e

    Table layout

    a b c d e

    Font style

    a b c d e

    Typographical accuracy

    b

    a e

    cd

    Graphic content

    a d

    b c e

    Consistency of graphic style

    a e

    b

    c d

    Balance of text and graphics

    b

    a c d e

    Match between text and graphics

    e

    b c

    a d

    Distinction between tables and figures

    d

    c

    a b e

    end figure

    Figure 24.2: Example of Audit Parameter Scoring

    To illustrate an objective method, let us consider the question 'Does the bid show empathy with client values and processes?', one of the points listed under 'Insight into client issues and requirements'. The way to convert this into an objective form is to decide what statements or other elements in the proposal would constitute showing empathy, and frame a series of more precise questions addressing these - for example, 'Is the proposed methodology described from the standpoint of the people who will use the outputs of the work, or from a narrowly technical point of view?'; 'Does the bid recognize the financial and operational constraints affecting the client?'; 'Does it refer explicitly to a key concern expressed by the client, namely the need to improve mechanisms for budgeting and financial accounting?'; 'Does it acknowledge that the survey findings from the concluding tasks in Phase 1 may lead to modifications in the Phase 2 programme?' Most of these questions should be amenable to 'yes/no' answers.

  4. The ratings for each proposal can then be combined to arrive at an overall assessment of the scope for improvement (Figure 24.3). If a point-scoring method has been adopted, the marks can be summed and expressed as a percentage of the total possible points. The people undertaking this assessment need to agree the proportion of total points to be awarded to each parameter and the weighting to be assigned to particular factors.

    start figure

    The matrix shows the overall scope for improvement identified in bids a to e.

    Summary of parameter scores

    High

    Medium

    Low

    Matching the bid specification

    b

    e c

    a d

    Projection of value and benefit

    b e

    a c d

    Strength of team/partnership

    b

    a c

    d e

    Client insight

    b e

    a c

    d

    Accessibility of information

    a b c e

    d

    Communication style

    b e

    a

    c d

    Business thrust

    b e

    a c d

    Management capacity

    b

    a d e

    c

    Presentation

    a b

    c d e

    Technical:price relationship

    b e

    a d

    c

    Bid management

    a b c

    d e

    end figure

    Figure 24.3: Example of a Summary of Audit Parameter Scores

Do not try to identify every possible item that might be considered under each parameter: the procedure would become overcomplicated, impossibly time-consuming and unmanageable. The audit should instead focus on aspects that are likely to have had a critical impact on the success or failure of the bid.




Bids, Tenders and Proposals. Winning Business Through Best Practice
Bids, Tenders and Proposals: Winning Business through Best Practice (Bids, Tenders & Proposals: Winning Business Through Best)
ISBN: 0749454202
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2003
Pages: 145
Authors: Harold Lewis

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net