Industry News

Andy Haigh, Director, and Consultant at Sixfold explores what motivates a bid team to go the extra mile:

As a Bid Director, I have been interested for a long time in what it is that motivates bid team members to work extended hours (sometimes 24 hours and longer without a break).  Despite being under high pressure they perform willingly, enthusiastically and usually for no financial reward above their normal salary.  Of course this does not occur in every case, however as any Bid Manager knows, it happens surprisingly often.  It can be accompanied by some grumbling about the poor performance of others who have created the “situation” – but it is usually not as a result of poor performance on their own part.  It seems that the individual feels that he or she has a personal responsibility to put the situation right and get the bid completed, no matter what level of effort is needed from them.

Representatives of partner and sub-contractor companies, seconded into the bid team, can show this characteristic as well.  They will “go the extra mile” to make sure their element of the bid response is as good as they can get it.  Their contribution will often contrast with the minimalist response of some staff within your own company who are required to provide bid text (because of their specialist role, e.g. HR, Legal or Quality Management) but who do not feel part of the core bid team.

Take any of these extraordinary people away from the bid and they can revert to type.  They will frequently go back to giving an adequate performance in their day-job, but will not shine.  So what is it in this stressful bidding environment that motivates them to give exceptional levels of contribution?  What can we learn from this which might be harnessed to increase productivity across other environments?

I don’t have all the answers.  Nevertheless, I have uncovered some pointers which seem to underlie the boost in personal engagement levels a bid situation brings out.

How the Bid Management Process Boosts Engagement

Finite Problem

A bid has a very clear deliverable, both in content and in quality.  One without the other will cause the bid to be lost and the entire team effort wasted.  So, members of the bid team usually have a clear understanding of the top level objectives they must respond to from the outset.

This clarity of contribution required and the knowledge that the individual’s bid content really matters seems to generate a high level of individual engagement.  Perhaps, if we can provide such clear direction and precision in the value of their contribution to a bid, it ought to create the same motivation if used elsewhere?

Defined Timescales

A bid has a real (and usually short) deadline.  Miss the deadline and you have thrown away all the bid work that has been done.  Everyone understands that there is little chance of any extension of the time to respond and so makes personal plans accordingly.

Of course, we are all used to working to deadlines and we know that setting deadlines can improve productivity.  All too often, however, we also know if the timescales are not met, we will get away with it.  We can use an excuse that something else was more important and our experience tells us that it will be accepted by our peers and superiors.  In the bid room, knowing that missing the deadline will be a disaster for everyone, can provide the impetus we all need, particularly as the bid deadline approaches.

Nevertheless, I believe that deadlines should only be set if they are truly deadlines.  If we set deadlines arbitrarily or without giving the justification for them, the motivation deadlines can create is diminished.  So perhaps more contribution will be achieved by stating and explaining deadlines and then not allowing them to be missed?  Moreover, if we set artificial deadlines we will be found out.  Then, the value of us setting the next deadline will be greatly diminished.

Measurement

Only one bid from the various competing companies will result in a contract.  Every element of each bid will be contrasted against the other bids and the best overall submission will be selected by the evaluators.  This means that the bid team is not being measured internally within the business; it is being measured against the best “out there”.

For some people, being the best is important and winning the bid proves they are the best.  I believe that if, through the bid development we can give people the opportunity and the support to prove that they “are the best”, we will improve their motivation and commitment.  I think that for some people, this ability to prove themselves is what drives them to become involved in more bids so that they can repeat the demonstration.  If we can tap into this motivation, an enhanced contribution must surely follow?

Part of the Team

In the final hours before a bid is handed over to the courier or is uploaded on to some secure web site the pace can become frantic and everyone “mucks in” to do whatever is needed to get the submission completed.  When it is all over, there is a real sense of “team” and tired elation.  This bonding can continue as enhanced relationships long after the particular bid activity is finished.

Teams formed at short notice to tackle difficult problems can bring out the best in some (but not all) people.  I think if we want more from our employees we should identify the ones who are motivated by the challenge and weigh the advantages of task-orientated teams over function orientation more carefully.

Conclusion

Of course, many people cannot be placed in the environment a bid team creates and nor would they want to be.  However, I have seen exceptional performances from otherwise average individuals so many times when they have been in a bid team, there has got to be something special going on.

For a business getting the bulk of its work from the Public Sector, it has to have a successful bid team.  For the team to be successful, overall levels of contribution must be high.  This will be achieved if the best people in the business are on the team.  Then the amount of business won will improve and the recognition this brings the team will elevate the status of everyone in the team.

As this happens, two other things will occur:

• A culture of excellence and high contribution will emerge within the bid team
• Other people in the company will aspire to join the bid team

If you get it right, this will then become self-reinforcing and your win rate will soar.

However, there is one clear danger: if left unchecked some people will become so immersed in striving for more and better bid results that they can “burn out” and everyone loses.

If you can start to generate the culture of a successful bid organisation in your business on the back of your next big win, our recommendation is to invest in keeping and increasing the momentum you have generated.  The rewards can be spectacular.  However, you need to rein back a little from time to time to keep these special people at the top of their game.

Is this only applicable to bid teams?  No, I don’t think so.  I think it will work anywhere where there is a clear combination of an expert team and complex tasks.  However, nowhere else in a business is this so starkly presented as in the bid room.

Author: Andy Haigh PPM APMP Director and Public Sector Bid Consultant, Sixfold International Ltd

We believe that Public Sector bid success comes from both the bid team members and the environment they are in. If you would like to discuss improving your bidding team’s effectiveness, please contact us on 020 8158 3952 / enquiry@bidsolutions.co.uk

Looking for the right people to join your team? We can connect you with permanent staff, or freelance bid writers who can help you go the extra mile. Click here to find out more.

Unfair or improper procurement decision? Just because you don’t object in the standstill period, doesn’t mean you can’t later mount a legal challenge.

If you are thinking of challenging an unfair or improper procurement decision following submission of your tender, you will already know that it is going to be difficult. Not only will the procurement team close ranks but the timescales are short in which you can launch your challenge.

Challenging a Procurement Decision

Not so long ago, a procurement team from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority took a challenge against it to the Court of Appeal on the basis that as the challenge was not lodged within the standstill period, it should be invalidated. In other words, their claim was that if you don’t mount your legal challenge within ten days of the award notification, you should not be able to do anything more. Having weighed all the facts, the Court of Appeal took the view that whereas the contract award could not be automatically stopped after the standstill period had expired, that did not affect the claimant’s 30-day window to pursue compensation for damages.

Moreover, the procurement team suggested that any damages which could be awarded should be strictly limited by a set of stringent EU case law conditions.  Again, the Court disagreed and ruled that the award of damages should be based on UK law, discretionary and dependent on what position the challenger would have been in if the procurement had not gone wrong, e.g. loss of profit.

These decisions by the Court of Appeal will be welcomed by all bidders in public sector procurement competitions. They make it clear that a bidder who is unsuccessful because of an aberration of the process can decide not to invoke the automatic suspension provisions of the standstill arrangements. However, they can then pursue a damages claim later without running the risk that their arguments will be weakened because of this decision and that if successful, their damages will be proportionate with their losses.

If this decision in the Court of Appeal had gone the other way, this would have meant that in practice we only have a 10-day window in which to mount a formal challenge to an inappropriately awarded public sector contract. This is now clearly not the case. Of course, normally it would make sense that if you are going to challenge a procurement result, you do so as soon as there is sufficient information to give grounds to the challenge. However, there could be situations where as a result of this judgement it may be tactically better for you to wait until the standstill period is over, the contract awarded and then claim damages?  In any case, if you are badly treated by the procurement process and your complaint stands the test of a legal challenge, you can expect fair compensation.

Author: Andy Haigh PPM APMP Director and Public Sector Bid Consultant, Sixfold International Ltd

This is a complex and possibly high-risk area and one that our partners at Sixfold have experience of. If you are thinking of contesting an unfair or improper procurement decision get in touch with them 01227 860375.

For more expert advice, industry news and more, visit our Bid Hub.

John Fernau of Sixfold looks at the future of government procurement.

I was at an event recently when the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Matt Hancock, raised a really interesting prospect.  He said that one of the things his team, presumably the Crown Commercial Service, are working on is a Crown Marketplace.  In essence, this is the extension of the GCloud concept into non-ICT categories.  According to Civil Service World, these would be what CCS calls common goods and services, which can cover all generic requirements of departments.

As I am a huge fan of the GCloud concept, this is a really exciting development.  Most importantly for me, the GCloud has lowered the barriers to entry for public contracts, allowing new market entrants and SMEs to create a sales channel to the public sector, which would have been very difficult before.  I think the transparency of the GCloud has been a revelation and has the potential to drive the GCloud market to make itself more competitive as it iterates.

Advantages to the GCloud model of Government Procurement

Another reason to be excited about an extension of the GCloud concept is that it goes some way towards solving a systemic problem in public procurement.  This problem is that the prescriptive nature of the procurement process prevents the public sector buying innovative products and solutions because they weren’t aware of them when their need was defined.  Even thorough market testing doesn’t address this, as the generic form of the solution is already formed by that point.  The GCloud approach allows buyers, and most importantly end users, to see what is available in the market before any form of process begins, preventing barriers to new solutions being put in place.

It’s not all sweetness and light though.  I saw some resistance from procurement teams over the use of GCloud.  This was partly due to genuine concerns over how diligently vendors are tested in the GCloud procurement, and partly due to reluctance to cede their role in the process as buying activity moves to end users.  All of these elements will apply in the same, or potentially more, ways to a roll-out of the GCloud approach beyond ICT.  Therefore from a vendor’s perspective, we need to be realistic about how long it would take for this approach to be generally adopted.

A potential solution is for procurement teams to behave more like the very best consultants, who are always seeking to transfer their knowledge and to put themselves out of a job.  In this way, procurement teams would focus on helping and training their end-user colleagues to buy fairly and to get the best value, leaving the end-user teams to conduct their own procurement under the GCloud type approach.  This would bring the end-users closer to the market which is where they need to be if the public sector is to access the innovation and new solutions it desperately needs.

Before joining Sixfold, John was the Home Office Group Commercial Director and previously the Head of Procurement of the Olympic Delivery Authority.

For more expert advice, industry news and more, visit our bid hub.