1. Four benefits for the tenderer
They have been covered in earlier articles, but here from the tenderer's side. The change of angle alters the weight of the argument.
| Benefit | Why |
|---|---|
| The time of quantity take-off disappears | according to professional sources it is the most time-consuming part of budgeting |
| Competitors price the same content | the fear of losing through thoroughness disappears |
| Variations are priced at an agreed unit price | faster than negotiating each time |
| Disputes over content diminish | what was agreed is written down |
The second is the most underrated, as covered by the article on the absence of structure: without a common schedule the market penalises thoroughness, and every experienced tenderer knows it. It concerns work repeated for nothing.
2. What they actually fear
Three fears, all legitimate and all solvable. That the cost structure becomes visible, which touches on competitive advantage. That the price will be pressed down line by line, as covered by the article on comparing lines. And that drawing up the document takes extra time, even though the calculation has already been made.
The first disappears where a unit price is asked for rather than a cost. The second is justified, and it is mitigated by the client's conduct rather than by the requirement itself. The third disappears where the form is prescribed, since the tenderer then does not have to rework its own document.
3. How to put the requirement
Three wordings work better than the language of control, and the third is the strongest. Wording affects how the requirement lands.
| Instead of | Say |
|---|---|
| "please show how the price is formed" | "please complete the attached form" |
| "we want to see your costs" | "we want all tenders to be comparable" |
| "we need unit prices for checking" | "we need unit prices so that later variations can be priced quickly" |
The third describes the actual use and is useful to the tenderer as well. The difference is one of tone rather than substance, but tone decides whether the best tenderer takes part at all.
4. When objection is justified
Three situations in which the tenderer is right, and the third is the most unfair. It concerns a one sided transfer of risk.
Where costs and margin are required to be shown separately. Where the form is so detailed that completing it takes a disproportionate amount of time for a small project. And where the binding status of the quantities is left open and the risk is placed on the tenderer without saying so.
The third occurs more often than is admitted: where the client does not say who is responsible for the quantity, the risk is carried by whoever does not know they are carrying it. The risk then falls on the tenderer by default.
5. What it means for the smaller bidder
Two consequences, which run against the usual assumption. Structure favours the smaller bidder.
A smaller company can take part in more procurements where quantity take-off is not its burden, and competition no longer depends on owning software, as covered by the article on the tools. The cost of preparing a tender falls.
A structured procurement is therefore more favourable to the smaller bidder than a free-form one, which is the opposite of what is usually assumed. Competition widens.
Summary and four practical rules
A structured requirement is usually a relief for the tenderer: the time of quantity take-off disappears, competitors price the same content, variations are priced at an agreed unit price and disputes diminish. Three fears are legitimate, but two of them disappear where a unit price is asked for and the form is prescribed, and the third is mitigated by the client's conduct. Objection is justified where the cost structure is demanded, where the form is disproportionate to the project, or where responsibility for the quantities is left unstated.
Four rules: put the requirement as a form, not as a question. Justify it by the pricing of variations, which benefits the tenderer too. State responsibility for the quantities, since silence is unfair. Keep the form in proportion to the size of the project.
This article offers professional orientation as at the date of verification. It replaces neither a quotation nor the assessment of a competent specialist.