Make better buying decisions with better tender specifications
Image: Mr.TinDC (cc)
I’ve read a lot of project briefs and tender specifications over the years and, while I’ve seen some good ones, I’m constantly amazed at how many contain basic errors, are repetitive or are simply too vague to serve their function of establishing a baseline for comparable quotes.
There are times when reading an RFT (request for tender) when I find myself feeling frustration on behalf of the client who has engaged us to help them develop a response. Here they are, trying to respond to a wide range of requirements and requests for everything from their last three P&L statements to their policy on the employment of child labour – all within some arbitrary and unnecessarily short deadline – only to find the organisation responsible didn't even bother to undertake a basic review of their own specification before unleashing it upon the market.
What makes a poor specification
Some of the most common problems I see in specifications are:
repetitive questions (using different wording to ask for the same information)
irrelevant questions (organisations will often use the same RFT template for buying toilet paper and commissioning a new IT system – the two are not interchangeable)
confusing structure (for example, jumping from general company information to solution specifics and back again)
asking questions that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the product or service they are seeking to buy
inflexible response documents (for example, only allowing yes/no responses to questions requiring detailed answers)
spelling and grammatical errors.
A poorly written specification not only makes life difficult for the respondents, who have to put extra time (often at extra expense) to decipher what information is being requested, but it makes it nearly impossible to effectively evaluate the final submissions. If the respondents all interpret the requirement differently, how is it possible to decide which one is better?
Limited options for respondents
The controlled nature of tenders means that respondents have limited options when confronted with a poorly written RFT. One is to simply save yourself the heartache and not respond, but often this is not possible, particularly if it involves retendering for an existing contract.
Most tender processes allow potential respondents to ask clarifying questions, and it is worth taking advantage of this if it will help in addressing the requirements more accurately. Be aware that there is usually a cut-off date for submitting questions, and that usually (although not always) the answers will be made available to your competitors in the tender process.
Lessons for issuing organisations
For issuing organisations, I issue this simple plea: respect your vendors and do proper diligence on your specification before it is released. If you are tendering for a product or service that involves specialist knowledge, get experts in to advise so your document makes clear that you understand what it is you are buying.
Otherwise, it not only looks rushed or lazy (or both), but it will make it harder to make an informed buying decision based on the submissions.
