Create a Bid/No-Bid Decision Framework

Overview

Prompt

You are an experienced UK construction Estimator and Business Development professional. Create a bid/no-bid decision assessment for the following tender opportunity:

Project: [PROJECT NAME, e.g., New-build primary school, 2-storey, 3FE]
Client: [CLIENT NAME, e.g., Westshire County Council via Faithful+Gould]
Location: [LOCATION]
Estimated Value: [VALUE, e.g., £8.5M]
Contract Form: [FORM, e.g., NEC4 ECC Option A]
Tender Return Date: [DATE]
Start on Site: [DATE]
Contract Period: [DURATION]
Procurement Route: [ROUTE, e.g., Framework mini-competition / Open tender / Negotiated]

Our Company Context:
- Sector experience: [DESCRIBE, e.g., Strong education sector portfolio, 12 schools in last 5 years]
- Client relationship: [DESCRIBE, e.g., New client, no previous relationship / Repeat client, strong relationship]
- Current workload: [DESCRIBE, e.g., Currently at 75% capacity, 2 estimators available]
- Geographic presence: [DESCRIBE, e.g., Regional office 15 miles from site]
- Recent win rate: [RATE, e.g., 1 in 4 on similar projects]

Known Competition: [LIST COMPETITORS IF KNOWN]
Number of Tenderers: [NUMBER, e.g., 4-6 firms invited]

Key Concerns or Risks:
[LIST ANY CONCERNS, e.g., Tight programme, contaminated land flagged in site investigation, novated design team we have not worked with before]

Produce a bid/no-bid assessment with:

1. Opportunity Summary (1 paragraph)
2. Scoring Matrix — score each factor 1-5 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) with justification:
   a. Strategic fit (does this align with our business plan and target sectors?)
   b. Client relationship (existing relationship, repeat business potential?)
   c. Project type and complexity (do we have proven capability?)
   d. Geographic fit (proximity to our offices and supply chain?)
   e. Competition (how many bidders, who are they, what is our win probability?)
   f. Resource availability (do we have estimating and delivery capacity?)
   g. Programme and timing (is the programme realistic, does it clash with other commitments?)
   h. Risk profile (are the risks manageable and proportionate?)
   i. Commercial terms (contract form, payment terms, retention, bonds, LDs — are they acceptable?)
   j. Margin opportunity (is there a realistic prospect of achieving target margin?)
   k. Design status (how developed is the design, is there scope risk?)
   l. Supply chain (do we have suitable subcontractors and suppliers?)
3. Total Score and RAG Rating (Red / Amber / Green thresholds)
4. Key risks if we bid
5. Key risks if we don't bid
6. Recommendation: BID / NO-BID / BID WITH CONDITIONS
7. Conditions or actions required before tender submission (if applicable)

Present the matrix as a clear table. Provide honest, balanced assessment.

Example Output

WORKED EXAMPLE: 3FE PRIMARY SCHOOL, FRAMEWORK MINI-COMPETITION

── WHAT GOES IN ──

Project: New-build primary school, 2 storey, 3 forms of entry
Client: Wiltshire County Council via Faithful+Gould
Location: Devizes
Estimated Value: £8.5M
Contract Form: NEC4 ECC Option A
Tender Return: 18/09/2026
Start on Site: 04/01/2027
Contract Period: 62 weeks
Procurement Route: SW Regional Framework, Lot 2, mini-competition

Our company context:
- Sector experience: strong education portfolio, 12 schools in 5 years, 4 for this council
- Client relationship: repeat client, good. Last job (Calne primary) completed 3 weeks early, no disputes, final account settled inside 8 weeks
- Current workload: 82% capacity. One estimator free from 25/08, the other committed to the Trowbridge health centre bid until 11/09
- Geographic presence: regional office 19 miles from site
- Recent win rate: 1 in 3 on framework mini-comps, 2 in 5 on education

Known competition: Ashfield Construction, Brightway Group. 3 firms invited off Lot 2.
Number of tenderers: 3

Key concerns or risks:
Novated design team we have not worked with before (Pellow + Marsh). Site is a former playing field with a surface water culvert crossing the north boundary, flagged in the SI but not resolved. Programme has the frame going up over January and February. Start on site is 8 weeks after tender return which is tight for procurement.

── WHAT COMES OUT ──

BID / NO-BID ASSESSMENT
Project: Devizes Primary School, 3FE
Value: £8.5M
Assessed: 21/08/2026
Assessed by: Estimating and BD

1. OPPORTUNITY SUMMARY

An £8.5M NEC4 Option A new-build primary school for a repeat council client on a framework we are already on, in our core sector, 19 miles from our regional office, against two known competitors. This is close to our ideal job profile. The material concerns are an unresolved culvert on the north boundary, a novated design team we have no history with, and an estimating resource clash that runs to 11 September against an 18 September return.

2. SCORING MATRIX

| Factor | Score | Justification |
|--------|-------|---------------|
| a. Strategic fit | 5/5 | Education is our stated core sector. This is squarely in the business plan. |
| b. Client relationship | 5/5 | Four completed jobs for this council. Calne finished early, final account settled in 8 weeks with no dispute. We are a known quantity here. |
| c. Project type and complexity | 5/5 | 3FE primary, 2 storey, traditional. We have built this building four times. |
| d. Geographic fit | 4/5 | 19 miles. Supply chain established. Slightly outside our densest subcontractor coverage but not materially. |
| e. Competition | 4/5 | 3 bidders, both known. Ashfield are strong on education and will price it keenly. Brightway have been chasing volume and may buy it. 1 in 3 base rate, better than that on our record in this sector. |
| f. Resource availability | 2/5 | This is the problem. One estimator free 25/08, the second not free until 11/09, leaving 5 working days of two-hander on an 8.5M NEC4 bid. Deliverable but thin, and it competes directly with the Trowbridge health centre bid. |
| g. Programme and timing | 3/5 | 62 weeks is realistic for the building. Start on site 8 weeks after return is tight for procurement, and frame erection across Jan/Feb carries weather risk we will need to price. |
| h. Risk profile | 3/5 | The culvert is the open item. SI identifies it, no resolution proposed, and it sits under the north boundary where the access road is shown. Could be a drainage diversion or could be a redesign. Unquantified. |
| i. Commercial terms | 4/5 | NEC4 Option A, framework terms, known and acceptable. Council pays to terms in our experience. LDs at framework standard. |
| j. Margin opportunity | 3/5 | Framework rates constrain the upside. Achievable but not generous, and Brightway buying it would compress it further. |
| k. Design status | 3/5 | Stage 4 at tender, which is workable, but novated to a design team we have not worked with. Unknown quality of coordination. |
| l. Supply chain | 4/5 | Established groundworks, frame and M&E subcontractors within range. Frame availability over January needs confirming early. |

3. TOTAL SCORE AND RAG RATING

Total: 45 / 60 (75%)
RAG: GREEN (thresholds: Green above 70%, Amber 50-70%, Red below 50%)

Note that the score is green despite two 2s and 3s in places that matter. This is why the recommendation is conditional rather than a straight bid.

4. KEY RISKS IF WE BID

The culvert. If it needs diverting and that is not resolved before tender return, we either carry an unquantified risk or we qualify the bid and lose competitiveness against two bidders who may not have spotted it.
Estimating resource. Five days of two-hander is thin for NEC4 Option A at this value. A rushed bid on a framework where we have a reputation is worse than no bid.
Winning both. If we win this and Trowbridge, we are over capacity in Q1 2027 with no plan.
Novated design team. Unknown coordination quality. Under Option A the design risk allocation needs reading carefully before we price it.

5. KEY RISKS IF WE DON'T BID

Framework standing. Three invited, and declining a Lot 2 mini-competition in our core sector, for a council we have done four jobs for, is noticed. Two consecutive declines would put our position on Lot 2 at risk.
Relationship. This client gives us repeat work. Declining their flagship education scheme without a good reason damages that.
Pipeline. Q1 2027 currently has 40% cover. This is exactly the job that fills it.

6. RECOMMENDATION

BID WITH CONDITIONS

The strategic case is strong: core sector, repeat client, known competition, a building we have built four times. The concerns are all resource and information problems rather than fundamentals, and both are addressable before return.

7. CONDITIONS AND ACTIONS BEFORE SUBMISSION

1. Raise a formal tender query on the culvert by 28/08. We need either a resolution or written confirmation of who carries the risk. If neither is forthcoming by 08/09, escalate the decision back to this group. Do not price an unquantified diversion.
2. Confirm the Trowbridge return date. If it can be requested a week later, take the extension and free the second estimator from 04/09. If not, this bid gets the freelance estimator from 01/09 and that cost goes in the bid budget.
3. Frame availability over January confirmed with our two steel subcontractors before we commit to the programme.
4. Pre-tender meeting requested with the novated design team. If they will not meet, note it and price the coordination risk accordingly.
5. Capacity plan for winning both this and Trowbridge, presented to the board before submission. If we cannot resource both wins, decide now which one we are actually trying to win.

── THE POINT ──

The score is 75 percent and green. The recommendation is still conditional, and condition 5 is the one that matters: what happens if we win both.

That is the question nobody asks until February. A framework that surfaces it in August has already paid for itself, regardless of what the total says.

Use Case