Tenders: What We've Learned – and Why Good Proposals Still Lose
We regularly participate in tenders. And we don't always win them.
That's no surprise – it comes with the territory.
Over time, though, you start to notice patterns. Not just among the winners, but also in the things that go wrong.
Good concepts aren't enough
This is probably our most important insight.
A good concept is necessary – but not sufficient. And sometimes it's not even the deciding factor.
Because before content is evaluated at all, something else comes first:
formal requirements, proof of eligibility, and completeness.
That sounds trivial at first. But it isn't.
How strict it really is
If you just look at the theory, the process seems pretty tough: if something is missing, it very often means immediate disqualification.
In practice, it's often somewhat more relaxed. Missing documents are frequently requested afterwards – especially when a proposal is compelling on substance. We've experienced this ourselves on multiple occasions.
But equally: you can't count on it. Sometimes the follow-up request comes. Sometimes it doesn't. And sometimes it comes at very short notice 😅.
Where things actually go wrong in reality
If we're honest, the problems are rarely technical ones.
They tend to arise somewhere else entirely: documents are put together under time pressure, certifications are no longer fully up to date, requirements get interpreted differently, or things simply slip through the cracks. And this doesn't just happen to others – it happens to us too.
What has changed over time
The big difference isn't getting better at pitching. It's becoming more structured in the process.
At some point you start asking questions like: Where are our documents actually stored centrally? How current are they? And how quickly can we actually respond to a tender at all?
And also: Why do we keep rebuilding the same things from scratch?
One building block for us at F7: Pre-qualification
For us, one step in this direction was pre-qualification – for example through the Amtliches Verzeichnis präqualifizierter Unternehmen (Official Register of Pre-Qualified Companies). Through this process, certain company credentials are verified once and stored centrally.
It doesn't replace a bid.
It doesn't win a tender.
And it doesn't earn any points.
But it changes the process.
Credentials aren't a mini-project of their own every single time.
Documents are available in a structured way.
You're not starting from scratch.
That may sound unspectacular – but in day-to-day work, it makes a difference.
Where theory and practice diverge
What also needs to be said: pre-qualification is far from universally established.
We repeatedly find that it isn't mentioned in tenders at all, isn't actively requested, or simply plays no role.
In some cases you even get the impression that it isn't always known on the client side – even though it could significantly simplify the process for both parties.
That's not a criticism. It just shows how differently procurement processes are organized in practice.
Another point that is often underestimated
The quality of the tenders themselves. Not every tender is clearly structured or complete.
What we regularly see: very vague or missing service descriptions, unclear requirements, and room for interpretation that should really be avoided.
That too is part of reality.
What this means for us as a provider
You're not operating in a perfect, standardized system – but in an environment with a certain degree of ambiguity.
And that's precisely why having a solid process in the background matters all the more.
Clean credentials, clear structures, and the ability to respond quickly.
Things like pre-qualification help with that – even if they aren't actively "rewarded" in every procedure.
And yet you still lose tenders
Even with better processes.
Even with pre-qualification.
Because other proposals are stronger.
Because the price doesn't fit.
Because references are more compelling.
Or because someone else is simply a better fit for the project.
Why we still consider pre-qualification worthwhile
Not because it wins tenders – but because it reduces effort, minimizes sources of error, and makes processes more stable.
And above all:
because you can focus more on the actual work, rather than on assembling the same documents over and over again.
When price dominates – and budgets are missing
A topic that keeps coming up in practice:
In many tenders, no budget is specified. At the same time, price is often weighted very heavily – not rarely 50% or more. This creates a situation many bidders are familiar with. There's no way of knowing what financial range the project is supposed to fall within. Bids are calculated in the dark, strategic decisions are based on assumptions, and some providers deliberately enter the race with very low prices.
What this means in reality
This dynamic changes behavior.
Prices are calculated more cautiously or more aggressively. Buffers are reduced. Concepts are scaled back.
Or to put it more bluntly:
in these cases, tendering becomes something of a lottery. Not because providers are working carelessly – but because the underlying conditions are unclear. And ultimately, it's the client's end product that suffers.
The consequence: quality is indirectly affected
When price is weighted heavily and orientation is lacking at the same time, there's a natural pressure to bid as cheaply as possible.
And that has consequences:
less room in the concept, less depth in the development, more cautious planning.
This often happens not consciously – but as a result of the system. And from our perspective, that's not sustainable.
Conclusion
Tenders are not a pure quality competition. They are a mix of content, price, references, structure – and the specific conditions of the procedure itself. And this interplay is often underestimated. Not just by others, but by ourselves too – at least in the past.
What we've learned:
A good bid rarely fails because of one single thing, but because of how many factors play out together. That's why we've made a conscious decision to strengthen our processes where we have direct influence: structure, credentials, and repeatability. Pre-qualification is one building block of that for us – not as an advantage in the evaluation system, but as a foundation for more stable working.
At the same time, our experience shows: there is still potential in the tendering system for greater clarity and efficiency. Clearer scopes of work. More transparent budget frameworks. And more consistent use of existing instruments like pre-qualification.
In the context of current political efforts to simplify procurement procedures, this seems to us like an obvious next step.
Because in the end, it's not just about finding the best bid – it's about creating the conditions under which quality, comparability, and efficiency can emerge in the first place.
Author
