Tenders — RFPs, RFQs, and similar processes — are how organizations run competitive buying processes with extensive requirements lists. For software consultancies, they are high-effort, high-risk activities. A single tender response can take the equivalent of a Spec Review worth of effort, with no guarantee of success.
Many teams jump into every tender they see, thinking more bids = more wins. In reality, this spreads your team thin, produces poor-quality submissions, and burns time on opportunities you were never going to win.
Instead, adopt a Bid/No Bid process: a deliberate pause to assess whether a tender is genuinely worth pursuing.
Tenders are often structured in ways that work against software consultancies:
Fixed price and rigid scope — Tenders frequently demand fixed-price commitments, which conflicts directly with Agile delivery. If you win on those terms, every change becomes a contractual negotiation
Many competitors — Government and enterprise tenders routinely invite 5–10+ suppliers. Unless you have a strong relationship or clear differentiator, you may simply be making up the numbers
Limited contact — Tender rules often restrict communication with stakeholders, removing your ability to demonstrate the intangible qualities (culture, trust, communication style) that often win work
Favors incumbents — Tenders ask only the questions in the document. If your real strengths aren't reflected in those questions, you can't show them
Only pursue tenders where you have a genuine, realistic chance of winning.
Before committing to any tender, answer these 4 gating questions:
Is the opportunity real? — Is this a genuine procurement, or are they shopping for a price to validate an incumbent?
Do we genuinely want it? — Does this align with your strategy, your team's strengths, and the kind of work you want to do?
Can we win it? — Do you have the relationship, differentiation, and positioning to beat the field?
Can we deliver it successfully? — Do you have the capacity and capability to deliver well if you win?
If you can't confidently answer "yes" to all four, walk away — that's a win too.
Use these 3 dimensions to structure your assessment:
Have you engaged with the client before, or does the process allow you to build that relationship?
Can you tailor your solution to their specific context and drivers?
Is there enough trust and credibility already established to win?
If the tender restricts all contact and you have no pre-existing relationship, the incumbent has a significant structural advantage.
How many competitors are invited? If more than 4 are known and your relationship is not strong, consider walking away
Do you have a compelling differentiator that genuinely matters to this client?
Are you better positioned than the likely frontrunner?
Do you have delivery capacity right now, or would you be borrowing people from active client work?
Do you have relevant experience to demonstrate?
Could you deliver well if you won — or would winning create more problems than it solves?
A win you can't deliver is worse than a graceful loss.
Look carefully at how the tender is structured before committing:
Agile fit — Is the client open to a
Spec Review to refine scope and estimates, or do they require a fully fixed scope upfront?
Change process — How rigid are the rules around scope changes? Fixed-price, fixed-scope tenders can consume enormous time managing change requests post-award
Assessment criteria — Are the evaluation criteria focused narrowly on cost, or do they allow quality and approach to be demonstrated?
If the engagement model is incompatible with how your team delivers, the risk of winning may outweigh the reward.
Your team receives a tender on Friday due Monday. It's for a major project with a new client you've never worked with. You haven't scoped the work, don't know who else is bidding, and would need to pull people from active delivery to respond.
❌ Figure: Bad example - Jumping in without alignment, preparation, or a realistic chance to win
Your team reviews a new tender using a Bid/No Bid checklist. The opportunity aligns with your strengths, your team has pre-engaged with the client, you understand their drivers, and you have a meaningful differentiator. You allocate the right people to develop a tailored response.
✅ Figure: Good example - A deliberate, informed decision leads to a stronger submission and better win probability
At least every 2 weeks, the team should review:
Current opportunities — Vote on which to pursue or drop
In-progress responses — Track progress, compliance documents, and deadlines
Platform activity — Check relevant portals for new tenders matching your target profile
Wins and pipeline — Report on outcomes and deal progress
Process improvement — Review what's working and adjust the approach
Regular reviews prevent teams from unknowingly over-committing to bids that have become less viable since they were first assessed.