Taking a fresh look at bids

Reviewing tendering activities to improve performance. By John de Forte

It is not unusual for law firms and their marketing departments to periodically question their approach to tenders. Sometimes, a run of unexpected losses can trigger deliberations about what the firm should be doing differently. Even if it is winning a healthy share of the available opportunities, the business-development team might wonder if there are any techniques or stratagems it ought to be using to improve the success rate.

The trouble is that it can be difficult to develop a complete or accurate picture of how well the firm is competing in this area. The conversion rate is a useful indicator of performance, but does not provide any insights into how the firm could do better. Carrying out debriefs with decision makers at the end of the process is undoubtedly worthwhile, although not enough to gain an overview of the firm’s performance. In some instances, indeed, proposers will have their own theories about the outcome and may question whether the debrief entirely trustworthy.

Perhaps the best way to get close to the reality of the firm’s competitive position on tenders is to assess all the activities involved in a proposal response, drawing on evidence from a variety of sources. Specifically, I suggest that firms look at processes, outcomes and performance, using findings to develop recommendations for improvement. This should provide a systematic framework with which to carry out the enquiry.

Processes
First, review the processes that are currently in place for dealing with tenders and identify the level of compliance with them. These processes may either reflect formal policies that have been adopted by the firm, or customs and practice, which over time have become entrenched as the standard approach.

When assessing process effectiveness, an important factor to consider is the extent to which the firm is making the most of its collective resources and experience. Are there mechanisms in place to ensure that key decisions are taken only after appropriate consultation with colleagues? Matters such as the composition of the team, pricing and, indeed, whether to pursue the opportunity in the first place often need to be considered from a firm-wide perspective and shouldn’t be left, for example, to the individual who received the invitation to submit a tender.

Similarly, the reviewer might need to consider whether proposal teams are making the best use of central facilities, such as business-development personnel or databases providing information on the firm, or the market sectors in which its clients operate. They should confirm whether or not all tender opportunities are being centrally recorded – an essential requirement if the firm is to keep track of overall performance, and also a means of ensuring that teams are getting appropriate support and following recommended practice.

Debriefing is another area requiring a coordinated approach. The reviewer should ascertain, inter alia: how comprehensive the debriefing programme is; whether or not debriefs with decision makers are conducted by someone independent of the service team; and, whether they are carried out on the phone or face-to-face. What mechanisms are in place for feeding back key findings to the firm?

The reviewer also needs to assess prevalent practice regarding pre-submission fact-finding, then the approach to drafting and producing the tender document. Who, for example, is generally given the responsibility of drafting and are they encouraged to follow guidelines or templates? What is the process for reviewing and signing off the document? Similar questions can be applied to the presentation. For example, are teams expected to rehearse their presentation in front of colleagues and is coaching available to help them prepare?

Where robust procedures are already in place, but it emerges that the level of compliance with them is low, the review should set out to identify and understand the barriers to acceptance and suggest ways to overcome them.

Outputs
The review of processes should be complemented by an independent assessment of the outputs produced during recent tender exercises. This involves an analysis of a sample of written material, possibly including records of fact-finding meetings as well as the tender document and any materials used in the presentation.

The reviewer should consider if the lay-out and visual presentation of tender submission materials supports the messages that the firm wishes to convey, and encourages the reader to focus on and absorb the content.

With regard to content and structure, some criteria to be considered include: how far the documents are tailored to the target organisation (could it have been written for any client?); or, how convincingly do they answer the question, ‘Why us?’ (could it have been written by any firm?). How well do they highlight the major issues facing the client and show how the firm will tackle these issues? To what extent do they get across how the firm’s involvement will lead to business benefits – and
what evidence and examples support these claims?

The trend towards procurement-driven, questionnaire-based tenders may have reduced firms’ room for manoeuvre in some respects, but these questions continue to be a touchstone for assessing the quality of the submission.

As an ephemeral medium, the oral presentation itself cannot be analysed in quite the same way. However, it should be possible to draw plenty of inferences from the process review, as well as by examining presentation materials and reviewing debriefs.

Performance
This is likely to involve taking soundings from those regularly involved in tenders on what they perceive to be the firm’s strengths and weaknesses, then comparing the findings with the messages conveyed by external debriefs. Where debriefs haven’t been done or aren’t sufficiently rigorous, it may be helpful to carry out some supplementary interviews with recent decision makers, to gain a better understanding of how prospective clients rate the firm’s approach and performance.

It may also be helpful to complement direct feedback of this kind with broader market analysis, to identify (or confirm) whether there are business trends or issues that could be influencing the outcome of tenders in particular sectors.

This is also the time to consider performance measurement. As already mentioned, the conversion rate provides a snapshot of tendering performance. Some firms may wish to go beyond this and evaluate the return on investment in this area, by capturing both costs and benefits. Aside from the financial gain expected to result from securing the appointment, other success criteria can be applied: for example, whether participation in a tender will increase the likelihood of the firm winning new business from the organisation in the future.

Recommendations
Putting together the conclusions from these various strands of enquiry should provide the firm with clear indications of where it can improve its approach. Recommendations might encompass changes in procedure, or initiatives designed to raise awareness of them. One possibility is to issue a one-page tenders chart, summarising the key actions and steps that everyone must take if involved in a tender.

The review may conclude that proposal teams should be given additional support, perhaps in the form of updated best-practice guidelines, coaching on individual presentations or more general preparation through training. Finally, the recommendations should include targets for the future, based on an assessment of current performance and an estimate of the gains that can be achieved by implementing improvements.

At each stage, an external perspective can provide insights into how the rest of the legal sector and other professions are tackling the issues, enabling the firm to compare its approach with current market practice.

The objective of the review is to identify whether the firm is tackling tenders efficiently and effectively, given the resources at its disposal and the business environment in which it operates. But more than this, it should help to ensure that proposal teams have the tools, confidence and inspiration to fulfil their potential.

John de Forte is principal of de Forte Associates. He can be contacted at jdf@deforte.com