1.4Tendering: quotation and call for tenders
The essentials in 30 seconds
- Same basis for all: same SOW, same response format, same shared information.
- Grid set before opening: criteria weighted by criticality, not by favourite.
- Best value, not lowest price: compare on identical TCO scope.
Running mini-case — Nadia and the grid that foils the lowest bidder
Nadia tenders four suppliers for a bagging machine: same SOW, same format, same deadline. The cheapest offer excludes installation and warranty. Her grid — price 40%, conformity 25%, lead time 20%, services 15% — brings everything to the same scope: the complete mid-range offer wins. Unsuccessful bidders are notified properly.
Sequel to cases 1.1-1.3 — Nadia compares on equal scope and chooses best value.
1. Quotation and call for tenders
Request for quotation (RFQ) suits well-defined purchases: same SOW and same reference list sent to 3-5 suppliers, with deadline and imposed response format (same sections, same units) to compare without rework.
The call for tenders is the more formal form for complex or high-stake purchases: complete dossier, framed process, sometimes pre-selection on capabilities (RFI) then detailed offer (RFP).
Three golden rules: same information for all (any answer to one's question is shared), realistic deadline (a rushed offer costs more than two weeks wait) and written traceability of exchanges and offers.
2. The weighted multi-criteria grid
Define before opening offers criteria and weighting: e.g. price 40%, quality/conformity 25%, lead time/reliability 20%, services/warranties 15%. Weighting reflects purchase criticality, not habit.
Each offer is scored criterion by criterion, weighted score ranks. Method forces to explicit what matters, protects from biases (likability, glossy brochure, habit) and makes choice explainable.
Choose best value (best overall weighted offer), not lowest price (lowest price). Price is only one criterion in its right place; bring all offers to same scope (TCO) before scoring.
3. Closing the tender properly
After ranking, a final negotiation with best-placed can optimise last points (see level 2). Contracting freezes scope, prices and commitments.
Inform unsuccessful bidders, even briefly with reason, maintains your market: they will respond again tomorrow, and your future competition depends on it.
Archive the dossier (SOW, offers, grid, decision) ensures traceability, internal justification and defence in case of audit or dispute.
🔎 Concrete example — The grid that avoids the lowest-price trap
Three offers for equipment: A cheapest but without installation or extended warranty, B mid-range complete, C most expensive. Brought to same scope (TCO with installation and warranty), B gets best weighted score despite higher price than A.
Reading: without grid, A would have won on price alone.
Lesson: compare on identical scope and weight by criticality to reveal best value.
Section vocabulary
- Tender
- Process of requesting offers from several suppliers on common basis (SOW), with deadline and imposed format.
Simple example: Nadia sends the same bagging-machine SOW to four suppliers with imposed format.
What it is not: a different verbal call to each with nothing in writing.
Reflex: every tender = same dossier and same deadline for all.
- Call for tenders
- Structured tender for complex or high-stake purchases; sometimes pre-selection then detailed offer.
Simple example: pre-selection on capabilities then detailed offer for the packing line.
What it is not: a call for tenders for a low-value routine purchase.
Reflex: reserve the heavy form for complex or high-stake purchases.
- Multi-criteria grid
- Comparison table by weighted criteria defined before opening; makes choice objective and traceable.
Simple example: Nadia's grid makes the complete offer win despite a higher price.
What it is not: comparing by gut feel after reading brochures.
Reflex: score criterion by criterion, never by overall impression.
- Weighting
- Weight given to each criterion by criticality; predetermines choice.
Simple example: price 40%, conformity 25%, lead time 20%, services 15% by criticality.
What it is not: identical weights by habit whatever the purchase.
Reflex: weighting reflects criticality, not habit.
- Best value / lowest price
- Lowest: cheapest price. Best value: best overall weighted offer — the pro goal.
Simple example: Nadia's complete mid-range offer beats the incomplete cheapest.
What it is not: taking the lowest displayed price without checking scope.
Reflex: bring all offers to the same TCO scope before scoring.
In practice — Run a tender and compare objectively
- Prepare dossier: SOW, quantities, lead times, imposed response format (same sections and units) and realistic deadline.
- Tender 3-5 suppliers with same information; share answers to one's questions with all.
- Before opening offers, set criteria and weightings by criticality.
- Bring offers to same scope (transport, warranty, services), score criterion by criterion, rank and inform unsuccessful.
Ready-to-say script — notify an unsuccessful bidder (30 s)
“Thank you for your careful offer. We selected an overall best value on our grid (price, conformity, lead time, services). Your proposal stays in our panel: we will consult you again. Would you like brief feedback on points to strengthen?”
Send to each loser within 48h: it maintains the pool for the next tender.
Copy-paste template — best-value grid
CRITERION 1 PRICE (___%): offer A ___ / B ___ / C ___
CRITERION 2 CONFORMITY (___%): offer A ___ / B ___ / C ___
CRITERION 3 LEAD TIME/RELIABILITY (___%): offer A ___ / B ___ / C ___
CRITERION 4 SERVICES/WARRANTIES (___%): offer A ___ / B ___ / C ___
TCO SCOPE CHECKED (transport, installation: yes/no): _______________
CHOICE + REASON: _______________Small business / tight budget
Simplified grid: three criteria (price, lead time, conformity) scored 1 to 5 on one page.
Algeria SME
Add locally available after-sales and spares as a heavily weighted criterion for imported equipment.
Small purchase
Light comparison: three quotes in the same format, two criteria — no heaviness.
Complex purchase
Pre-selection on capabilities then detailed offer, with full written traceability.
✓ Best practices
- Impose identical response format: you'll save hours of comparison and avoid omissions.
- Set weightings before opening: afterwards, you'd choose criteria that favour your favourite.
- Keep same TCO scope for all offers: a cheaper offer without services is not cheaper.
✗ Common pitfalls
- Tendering a single supplier by habit: you have no market reference and no leverage.
- Opening offers then inventing criteria: it's justifying bias, not comparing objectively.
- Neglecting to inform losers: you dry up your pool for next tender.
Key takeaways
- Tender 3-5 suppliers on common basis and same information for all.
- Criteria and weightings fixed before opening: protect from bias and make choice explainable.
- Compare on identical scope (TCO): incomplete offer is not cheaper.
- Choose best value, not lowest, and inform unsuccessful.
48h Challenge — apply tomorrow
Prepare 1 upcoming tender: set your criteria and weightings before opening offers (template above) and impose an identical response format on the 3 to 5 candidates.
- I can explain best value vs lowest price.
- I can set criteria and weightings before opening.
- My next tender goes out on a common basis with imposed format.
Frequently asked questions
Why impose a grid when I feel the best offer?
Feeling is biased (likability, halo, habit, anchoring) without realising. Grid fixes criteria before opening, forces fact-based comparison, makes choice explainable to management and collectively debatable. It also protects against favouritism suspicion.
How many suppliers to tender?
Three to five credible (qualified) candidates is the balance: enough to see market, not too many to remain analysable and for suppliers to respond seriously. One only justified if supplier is truly unique or for very small purchase.
When should criteria and weighting be set?