During several recent governance based assessments of construction related companies and corporations, I observed a recurring and systemic gap, after losing a bid, no formal post-mortem or structured tender review meeting was conducted. This was particularly concerning given that such reviews were clearly prescribed in many organisations core business processes, manuals, or governance frameworks. In practice, once a tender was unsuccessful, focus shifted immediately to the next opportunity, leaving little room for reflection or institutional learning. This disconnect between documented procedures and actual practice raises questions about accountability, process ownership, and governance effectiveness.
The reasons for unsuccessful bids were rarely isolated. More often, they were multi-layered and interconnected. Common factors included limitations in track record such as strong civil engineering experience but weaker M&E credentials for integrated projects leading to reduced client confidence. In some cases, technical expertise was assembled on an ad-hoc or short-term basis, undermining bid credibility and continuity. Pricing strategies were also a major contributor, ranging from uncompetitive submissions to aggressive underpricing that failed to adequately reflect project risks.
Project planning weaknesses were another recurring theme. Critical Path Method (CPM) schedules frequently failed to account for construction sequencing, interface risks, regulatory approvals, or external dependencies. These shortcomings were further compounded by material cost volatility, optimistic supply chain assumptions, and unrealistic resource loading. As a result, bids that appeared attractive on paper often lacked robustness when evaluated by experienced assessors.
From a governance perspective, the absence of structured post-mortem reviews represents a significant missed opportunity for organisational learning and risk management. Without proper documentation, root cause analysis, and feedback loops, organisations struggle to distinguish between internal weaknesses and external market conditions. Consequently, the same shortcomings are repeated across multiple tenders, leading to inefficient use of bid resources and a gradual erosion of competitiveness.
Post-bid evaluations should not be viewed as fault-finding exercises, but as strategic tools to improve bidding accuracy, capability alignment, risk pricing, and tender discipline. More importantly, the lessons learned must be formally integrated into future practices, including marketing narratives, tender qualification and “go/no-go” decisions, and targeted capacity-building initiatives. Over time, this structured learning loop enhances bid success rates, supports long-term sustainability, and strengthens overall governance maturity.
No comments:
Post a Comment