Bid Loss Forensics

Bid Loss Forensics

1. Outcome snapshot

Your bid scored 72, compared with the successful bidder's 78.

The available evidence establishes a material weakness in the mobilisation response: your mobilisation plan scored

4/10, compared with the winner's

8/10, and the debrief explicitly states that your response lacked named responsibilities.

That weakness is therefore an explicit loss factor.

The evidence supplied does

not, however, establish that mobilisation alone caused the overall six-point loss. The complete criterion-level scoring would be required before making that conclusion.

2. Evidence register

3. Loss mechanism analysis

QUALITY_SCORE — HIGH confidence

The mobilisation response was materially outscored.

Evidence: E3, E4 and E5.

The weakness is explicit rather than inferred because the buyer identified the missing named responsibilities.

It was at least contributory to the unsuccessful outcome.

It cannot yet be classified as the sole or decisive cause because the complete scoring arithmetic has not been supplied.

4. Pre-deadline knowability

Classification: KNOWN

The requirement existed explicitly in the ITT before submission.

The bidder therefore had enough information before the deadline to know that the mobilisation response needed to demonstrate:

• responsible roles;
• dependencies; and
• first-30-day milestones.

The evaluator's eventual score was not knowable, but the underlying requirement was.

5. Earliest preventable point

The earliest evidenced opportunity to reduce this risk was the compliance/evidence review before submission.

A review comparing the drafted mobilisation response directly against the ITT requirement could potentially have identified the absence of named responsibilities before the bid was submitted.

This does not establish that correcting the response would have won the tender.

6. Corrective action plan

7. Evidence still needed

To establish whether mobilisation was actually decisive, obtain:

• the complete criterion-level scoring breakdown;
• weighting for the mobilisation criterion;
• evaluator comments for the other quality criteria;
• any price-score differential; and
• the applicable scoring methodology.

8. Bottom line

Loss reason partly established; material gaps remain.

The evidence establishes that mobilisation was a genuine weakness and that its requirements were knowable before submission. It does not yet establish that this weakness alone caused the overall loss.