A bid/no-bid decision determines whether a company invests time and budget in a tender. It answers two questions in this order: Can we meet the mandatory requirements? And is taking part worth it compared with our other options?
A weighted matrix supports the second question. For the first, you need clear check criteria. If you mix the two, you can accidentally offset a missing mandatory reference with an attractive contract value.
When the decision to take part should be made
Make the first decision after reviewing the notice and the documents, before the extensive bid preparation begins. In a procedure with a prior call for competition, you first decide on the request to participate. After the invitation to submit a bid, you check again whether the scope and effort justify further work.
Repeat the check when key assumptions change: the contracting authority moves dates, a partner drops out or the pricing exceeds the approved risk limit. An earlier approval applies to the conditions at that time. The tasks of the bid manager include presenting such changes for a decision.
Step 1: Check mandatory requirements before the score
For each check question, use the states met, unclear or cannot be met. Record the source and the evidence. An unclear point needs a responsible person and an internal clarification date before the relevant procedural deadline.
| Area | Deciding question | Suitable evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Suitability | Do we meet the defined minimum requirements? | Mapping of each requirement to a reference, declaration or other required evidence |
| Grounds for exclusion | Is there a possible ground for exclusion that must be checked? | Review of the facts by the responsible expert |
| Service | Can we meet all binding service requirements? | Technical confirmation with a solution description |
| Dates and resources | Can we bid on time and deliver by the required date? | Bid plan and confirmed capacity plan |
| Contract and profitability | Are the terms compatible with our approved limits? | Contract review, pricing and documented risk approval |
The last two rows also contain internal limits. They must be kept apart from legal requirements. Responsible management can, for example, deliberately adjust an internal margin target. It cannot lift a binding requirement of the contracting authority through internal approval.
Within the scope of the GWB (German Act against Restraints of Competition), Section 122 governs suitability. Possible grounds for exclusion must be checked separately under Sections 123 and 124 GWB. Pay attention to the specific evidence required and when it must be submitted. The overview of GWB Part 4 explains how these fit together.
A missing capability of your own does not automatically lead to a final no-bid. Within the scope of the VgV (Public Procurement Ordinance), Section 47 VgV can allow you to rely on third-party capacity if its requirements are met. Their actual availability must be proven. Certain professional capacities require the partner to perform the service in question. Also check any requirements for self-performance. Our subcontractor guide explains the distinction.
If a mandatory requirement cannot be met after checking, the result is no-bid. If it is unclear, release at most a limited clarification budget. Regular approval for the bid work only follows once fulfillment is proven.
Step 2: Assess the opportunity with a transparent matrix
For each of the following criteria, give zero to five points. A suitable shared scale is:
| Points | Rating |
|---|---|
| 0 | No visible benefit or very unfavorable |
| 1 | Weak |
| 2 | Below average |
| 3 | Viable |
| 4 | Strong |
| 5 | Particularly well documented |
Justify each rating based on the specific tender. Unknown information does not get an optimistic placeholder score.
You calculate the weighted points with the formula weight × rating / 5. The weights add up to 100, so the highest total is 100 points.
The following fictional example concerns an IT service provider deciding on a bid for a support contract. After the first check, all mandatory requirements are met.
| Criterion | Weight | Rating | Reasoning in the example | Weighted points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical fit | 30 | 4 | Established service. One subprocess needs adapting | 24 |
| Competitive position | 25 | 3 | Good evidence for the quality features being evaluated. Price position uncertain | 15 |
| Profitability | 20 | 4 | Pricing meets internal targets, including risk reserve | 16 |
| Available resources | 15 | 3 | Minimum staffing secured. Little reserve with parallel projects | 9 |
| Strategic value | 10 | 4 | Desired customer segment and matching contract term | 8 |
| Total | 100 | 72 |
The calculation is: 30 × 4 / 5 + 25 × 3 / 5 + 20 × 4 / 5 + 15 × 3 / 5 + 10 × 4 / 5 = 72 points.
The competitive position must relate to the actual evaluation. Under Section 127 GWB, the stated award criteria are what counts. An elaborate presentation does little good if it is neither required nor evaluated. The internal matrix serves your resource decision. It does not replicate the contracting authority's scoring.
Step 3: Turn the result into a binding decision
For this example, we use the following internal limits:
| Score | Decision |
|---|---|
| 80 to 100 points | Go, provided all requirements are met and resources are approved |
| 65 to under 80 points | Go only after a named risk approval or with verifiable internal conditions |
| Under 65 points | No-bid. An exception needs a justified decision by the responsible management |
The limits apply to this worked example. They are neither an industry standard nor a legal requirement. Agree on your limits before assessing individual cases. Otherwise, weightings are easily changed until the desired result comes out.
With 72 points, the team in the example gives a conditional go. Division management must confirm an additional staff reserve by the internal concept review. Until then, the team may invest at most 16 hours. If the condition remains open, the management board decides again whether to continue or stop.
Such a condition steers the internal work. It does not belong in the bid as an unchecked reservation. Final approval requires that the company can make a binding commitment to the services it offers.
Also calculate effort and return
A score does not replace pricing. Estimate the bid preparation from work packages: document review, concept, pricing, evidence, reviews and submission. Value internal hours at a traceable cost rate and add external expenses.
In the fictional example, these bid costs come to €12,000. If awarded, the contract could contribute €110,000 after the attributed delivery costs. After an additional risk reserve of €10,000, €100,000 remains. With a purely assumed win probability of 25 percent, the result is:
0.25 × €100,000 − €12,000 = €13,000 expected contribution after bid costs.
At ten percent, by contrast, it would be −€2,000. The break-even point is 12 percent. The probability is an uncertain assumption. Check several scenarios and label the basis. Also consider payment timing and alternative projects that need the same specialists. So even with a positive expected value, check whether your team can take on the contract.
Who decides? A template for the approval record
The bid manager collects evidence and drafts the recommendation. The specialist department confirms the ability to deliver, Finance confirms the pricing, and the responsible contract or legal function clarifies relevant contract risks. Internally authorized management decides on the budget and accepted risks.
For a traceable approval, a short record with these fields is enough:
- Tender, lot, document version and relevant deadlines.
- Mandatory requirements with sources, evidence and open points.
- Ratings, weights and justified assumptions.
- Estimated bid effort and approved budget.
- Decision, conditions, owners and clarification dates.
- Decision maker, decision date and trigger for a new review.
This lets you see later whether a decision was based on wrong assumptions or whether the situation changed afterward.
Learning from a no-bid
Document the main reason: missing suitability, capacity, uneconomic terms, low strategic value or too little time to prepare. "Not a fit" is too vague for this.
If missing references pile up in a desired segment, a suitable partner or a smaller entry-level contract can help. If matching procedures regularly reach the team too late, check your search profile and internal intake. The guide to finding tenders automatically describes this upstream step. Review the no-bid reasons regularly, without counting every justified pass as lost revenue.
Frequently asked questions about the bid/no-bid decision
What is a bid/no-bid decision?
A bid/no-bid decision determines whether a company continues working on a tender and releases time and budget for it. It combines checking mandatory requirements with a commercial and strategic assessment. The decision is documented with reasons, owners and any conditions.
What is the difference between bid/no-bid and go/no-go?
For tenders, the terms are often used for the same decision to take part. Go/no-go can also refer to later approvals, for example after a change to the procurement documents or before final submission. That is why every team should define which decision is meant at which point.
What score is enough for a go?
There is no universal score. Weights and limits must fit the company and its appetite for risk. The thresholds in this article are a worked example. A go also requires that mandatory requirements are met and open conditions are closed in time.
Can a missing suitability criterion be offset by other strengths?
An internal score cannot offset a binding suitability criterion. Check whether a permissible solution exists, for example reliance on third-party capacity (Eignungsleihe) under the relevant requirements. As long as fulfillment is unclear, the approval to take part remains open. High strategic value does not change that.
Use the template for your next decision to take part and file the evidence right with it. You can start searching for matching procedures in procuris.