1. An old observation that still holds
It is formulated clearly in a professional teaching text, and it is hard to dispute. The same work is done several times over.
To make a tender, a contractor had to calculate the project's quantities of work and the material required, and this was done by measuring off the drawings. Since the source data were the same for every tenderer, all the calculation results should have been the same, provided no errors were made. In the wording of the professional source, such an arrangement was not, however, sensible.
The argument is simple: if everyone must arrive at the same result, there is no point in having everyone calculate it separately. The only thing that actually differs between separate calculations is the errors.
2. Who pays for the duplicated work
Three steps lead to one answer, which is rarely stated out loud. The answer concerns how the procurement is set up.
| Step | Content |
|---|---|
| 1 | Every tenderer spends time on quantity take-off |
| 2 | That time is a company overhead, covered out of tender prices |
| 3 | The price of a won procurement also covers the preparation of the lost ones |
The client therefore pays for the duplicated work, though not in the procurement where it was done. The cost is dispersed and invisible, which is why it is not discussed, and in professional terms it is a standing cost of the market that creates value for no one.
3. Why it persists in the market
Three reasons, of which only the third can be changed. No tenderer can abandon it alone, since without a calculation there is no tender. No tenderer shares their calculation with a competitor, which is understandable. And the client does not know that it could prescribe the arrangement.
This is a coordination problem, which the market does not solve by itself, since no participant gains by being the one to abandon it. The remedy has to come from the client.
4. What would end it
One step, already covered, and it shifts where competition happens. It is providing the quantities.
Where the schedule of works and the quantities are prescribed, the work is done once, by one party. According to professional sources, the preparer, the client and the tenderer then all gain an overview, as covered by the article on who prepares the structure.
The tenderer's work then reduces to putting prices in, which is their real competence and competitive advantage. Competition moves from the precision of quantity take-off to the efficiency of pricing and organisation, which is better for the client: a client does not buy quantity take-off, it buys construction.
5. What it means for smaller companies
Three consequences, and the third is the client's direct interest. The volume of quantity take-off limits how many procurements a company can enter, so a smaller company has to choose which ones to bid for. A common schedule of quantities lowers the threshold to take part, which increases competition, and more tenders mean a better price.
A structured procurement is therefore not only a question of organisation but also a question of competition. The field of participants widens.
Summary and four practical rules
The quantities of the same project are calculated as many times as there are tenderers, although from the same source data all should reach the same result, so that separate calculations differ only in their errors. The cost of the duplicated work is a company overhead covered out of tender prices, so the client pays for it in the end without it being visible anywhere. A common schedule of quantities ends the duplication, shifts competition to pricing and organisation, and lowers the threshold for smaller companies to take part.
Four rules: treat quantity take-off as a standing cost of the market, not as each tenderer's private problem. Bear in mind that the cost of duplication comes back in tender prices. Provide the quantities if you want more tenders. Direct competition at pricing and organisation rather than at the precision of quantity take-off.
This article offers professional orientation as at the date of verification. It replaces neither a quotation nor the assessment of a competent specialist.