Go/No-Go: How to Decide Which Tenders Are Worth Bidding On

Most small-to-mid builders have the same problem: they bid too much, too wide, on tenders they can't realistically win. The result is a 2–5% win rate, burned-out estimators, and a pipeline that never converts. Builders with a 20–30% win rate aren't smarter or luckier — they're just more selective.

This guide gives you a simple 7-factor scoring framework to run on every tender before you commit effort. If it scores below 60, walk away. Your time is better spent on the next one.

The 7-factor scoring worksheet

Score each factor 0–10, multiply by the weighting, add up. A score of 60+ is a go. Below 45 is almost always a no.

1. Eligibility fit — weight 20%

• 10 = We meet every mandatory requirement with room to spare
• 7 = We meet them all, just barely
• 4 = One requirement is tight (e.g. our PL insurance is $10M, they want $20M — upgradeable but costs money)
• 0 = We're missing a hard requirement (prequalification we don't have, licence class we don't hold)

2. Project fit with our experience — weight 20%

• 10 = We've delivered 3+ projects almost identical to this in the last 5 years
• 7 = 2 projects that are clearly similar
• 4 = 1 project that's vaguely similar
• 0 = This is a new sector or scope for us

3. Financial capacity — weight 15%

• 10 = Contract value is 10–25% of our annual turnover — sweet spot
• 7 = 25–50% of annual turnover
• 4 = 50–100% of annual turnover (stretch, but doable with JV)
• 0 = More than 150% of annual turnover or less than 5% (too risky or too small to bother)

4. Geographic fit — weight 10%

• 10 = Within our core operating region, no travel cost
• 7 = Near edge of our region, minor travel cost
• 4 = Requires a satellite office or accommodation budget
• 0 = Completely out of our region

5. Time to respond — weight 10%

• 10 = 4+ weeks until close, minimal estimator backlog
• 7 = 2–4 weeks, manageable
• 4 = 1–2 weeks, tight but possible with full attention
• 0 = Less than a week, already have 2 other bids due

6. Competition profile — weight 10%

• 10 = Select tender (we're on a shortlist of 3–5 invited builders)
• 7 = Open tender but specialist scope keeps the field narrow (5–10 bidders expected)
• 4 = Open tender, broad scope, likely 15–25 bidders
• 0 = Open tender, generic scope, race-to-the-bottom pricing

7. Margin potential — weight 15%

• 10 = Our rates suggest 15%+ margin at competitive pricing
• 7 = 10–15% margin likely
• 4 = 6–10% margin, thin but workable
• 0 = Need to bid below cost to have a chance

Scoring the tender

Multiply each factor's 0–10 score by its weight, sum the weighted scores, and you get a 0–100 total. A 70+ is a strong go; 60–70 is a maybe-with-conditions; below 60 is usually a no.

Example: A $3M council civil tender in your home state, with 3 weeks remaining, similar to 2 past projects, requires ISO 9001 (which you have), PL $10M (you have $20M), 15–20 expected bidders. You'd score something like: Eligibility 10×0.2 + Experience 7×0.2 + Financial 8×0.15 + Geography 9×0.1 + Time 7×0.1 + Competition 4×0.1 + Margin 7×0.15 = 73. Strong go.

Automatic no-go red flags

Even if the score is 70+, walk away if any of these are true:

• Unlimited indemnity clause in the Special Conditions
• Fixed-price contract on a 24+ month job with no rise-and-fall mechanism
• Liquidated damages greater than 0.5% of contract value per day
• No extension of time provision for latent conditions or weather
• Mandatory site visit you can't attend
• Required prequalification you don't have and can't get in time
• Client known for disputes, late payment, or scope creep

How to use this with a team

If you have more than one estimator, make the go/no-go a 15-minute meeting at the start of every tender. Principal scores each factor, documents the decision, and either assigns the tender to someone or kills it. You want a written record of why you bid (or didn't) so you can review your hit rate at the end of the year and improve your framework.