Phase 1: go/no-go (days 1 and 2)
Everything starts with the decision to compete, which must be taken within 48 hours to preserve the timeline. The first pass through the documents answers four knockout questions: do we meet the required standing or classification? Is the base budget reasonable for this type of works? Do we have production capacity in the contract's dates? Does the scoring formula let us compete with our cost structure? The rapid reading method is detailed in the article on the PCAP and PPT tender documents.
A portfolio criterion completes the decision: the usual win rate in public works means that bidding for everything destroys margin in estimating hours. It is more profitable to select a few well-chosen tenders (known client, mastered typology, predictable competition) than to industrialise mediocre bids.
Phase 2: the cost study (days 3 to 12)
The heart of the bid is the cost study built on the design quantities. The work has three layers:
Verify the quantities. Before pricing, check the design quantities against the drawings for the heaviest items. Measurement errors exist and cut both ways: an item undervalued in the design is a risk if the discount is linear; an overvalued one, an opportunity. The systematic review draws on the logic of the bill of quantities.
Price with the company's own data. Real crew output rates, firm quotations from the main subcontractors (structure, building services), updated material prices. Items priced from generic databases are the ones that surprise later on site.
Consolidate the dry cost and indirects. To the direct cost are added the site indirect costs (site team, cabins, cranes, consumption), company overheads and the target margin. The result is the waterline: the price below which the project loses money.
Phase 3: the discount decision (days 12 to 14)
With the waterline set, the discount decision crosses three inputs: the scoring formula (how many points each extra point of discount buys, whether a saturation threshold exists), the abnormality threshold (calculable or estimable depending on the documents, as explained in the article on abnormally low tenders) and the contracting authority's track record (the winning discounts of its previous tenders, public on the contracting profile). All three are obtained before deciding rather than afterwards.
Scenario simulation is the right decision format: three discount hypotheses with their expected score, resulting margin and position relative to abnormality. Management decides with the three numbers on the table; the worst discount decision is the one taken on the last day without a simulation.
Phase 4: the technical submission (in parallel, days 3 to 16)
Where the documents include judgement-based criteria, the submission is written against the sub-criteria, not about the company. The correct structure replicates one by one the scoreable headings of the documents, with just enough content to evidence each: a construction method specific to this project (not generic), a works programme consistent with the offered resources, concrete and verifiable measures. Evaluators score with a template derived from the documents; making each answer easy to find is direct scoring.
Two errors neutralise entire submissions: generic content recycled from other bids (evaluators detect it and score it down) and financial information slipped into the technical envelope, which is grounds for immediate exclusion. Both are avoided with a final review of the bid before sending it.
Phase 5: formalisation and submission (days 17 to 19)
The last phase is administrative and runs on a checklist:
| Control | Verification |
|---|---|
| Bid form | Completed without alterations, figures in words and numbers matching |
| Envelope structure | Every document in its envelope; cross-check by a second person |
| Self-declaration / ESPD | Signed by a representative with valid powers |
| ROLECE | Registration valid and data updated (mandatory in the simplified procedure) |
| Electronic signature | Representative certificate in force, tested before the last day |
| Submission | Correct tool (state or regional), filed the day before the deadline |
Electronic submission and its risks have their own article: the procurement platform and electronic tendering. It is worth reading before the first submission rather than during it.
After submission: the improvement loop
The bid does not end with filing. Won or lost, the contracting profile will publish the scores and evaluation reports of all bids: reading them systematically (which discount won, how our submission scored against the winner's) turns every tender into data for the next one. Companies that keep that record sharpen their discount decision tender after tender; those that do not repeat the same mistakes with new bids.
Worked example: the discount decision with the numbers on the table
Take the method's reference project: a base budget of EUR 1,190,000 excluding VAT. The cost study concludes: direct cost of EUR 941,000, site indirects of EUR 84,000, and company policy requires covering 6 per cent of overheads and targeting a 4 per cent margin. The waterline (full cost with no margin) lands at EUR 1,086,500, that is, an absolute maximum discount of 8.7 per cent; with the target margin, the comfortable discount is 4.6 per cent.
The simulation crosses those limits with the competitive environment: the formula is purely proportional, the council's history shows winning discounts between 9 and 14 per cent, and the estimated abnormality threshold sits around 18 per cent. The three scenarios on management's table:
| Scenario | Discount | Resulting margin | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 5% | ~3.9% | Healthy margin, low award probability per the track record |
| Competitive | 9% | ~0% | At the low end of the history, zero margin: only defensible for strategic value |
| Aggressive | 12% | Negative (~–3%) | Buying work: an accepted loss in exchange for a reference or workload |
Management opts for 9 per cent, leaning on two elements the study had quantified: surplus company-owned formwork already amortised and the proximity of the machinery yard, which pull the real cost below standard. The decision is documented, which months later effortlessly feeds the justification when another tender from the same authority does trigger the abnormality procedure.
The minimum team and its backups
The method above presupposes roles, not necessarily different people: in an SME, one person may cover two. The four essentials: someone who detects and filters (alerts, documented go/no-go), someone who prices (quantities, supplier quotations, the waterline), someone who writes the submission against the sub-criteria, and someone who formalises and files (documentation, signature, platform). The classic weak point is concentrating everything in one person with no backup: a holiday or sick leave in the wrong week costs the entire tender. A duplicated signing certificate and a written checklist anyone can execute are the cheap insurance against that risk.
Note: the timelines and references cited reflect Spanish legislation in force in 2026 (Ley 9/2017). Adapt the method to the requirements of each specific tender's documents.