When five suitable tenders arrive together, the question is not only whether each one is attractive. It is whether the team can prepare credible responses without overcommitting the same technical, commercial or legal people.
Use this guide to produce an approved portfolio: selected bids, capped investigations, declined work and the hours reserved for each. Download the editable bid-capacity planner; it is unbranded and requires no registration.
Qualify first, prioritize second
Bid/no-bid qualification asks whether a specific opportunity can be compliant and commercially acceptable. Portfolio prioritization asks which eligible opportunities deserve scarce capacity.
Keep mandatory gates outside any weighted score. A missing required certification is not compensated by a valuable contract. Where evidence is unknown, assign a short investigation with an owner and decision date. Do not quietly treat unknown as passed.
Count the time that is actually available
Create one row per person and week. Deduct existing bids, delivery obligations, leave and internal review time. Then estimate the new bid by work package: requirement review, evidence collection, solution design, pricing, partner coordination, writing, approval and submission checks.
Hours are estimates until the team validates them. There is no universal number of bids that one writer can handle. A familiar renewal and a new multi-partner solution do not impose the same workload.
Check deadlines in their stated timezone. Work backward from submission, allowing time for internal approval and the actual submission process. Two bids can fit the monthly total while colliding on the only available technical reviewer.
Worked example: five opportunities, 80 available hours
The following is a fictional planning exercise, not Duke customer results, recommended staffing ratios or a probability model. Assume one combined planning period with 80 available hours after existing commitments.
| Opportunity | Eligibility | Estimated work | Evidence and decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: familiar managed-service scope | Pass | 35 hours | Existing references fit; select, subject to terms review |
| B: adjacent service with credible references | Pass | 30 hours | Select after confirming delivery availability |
| C: attractive but unfamiliar implementation | Pass | 60 hours | Defer or decline; it displaces both selected bids |
| D: specialist lot with unresolved partner evidence | Unknown | 4 hours to investigate; full bid not approved | Cap investigation at 4 hours and name an owner |
| E: mandatory requirement cannot be met | Fail | No full bid budget | Decline; record the requirement and reason |
A and B consume 65 hours. The D investigation brings committed effort to 69 hours, leaving 11 hours unallocated. That buffer is a consequence of this example, not a recommended percentage. If D becomes eligible, its full bid still needs a fresh capacity decision.
The arithmetic is not the whole decision. If A and B both require a specialist who is unavailable in the same week, the portfolio does not fit. Reallocate actual people or change the selection; do not solve the collision by assuming overtime.
Compare the remaining eligible work
Use four questions, each with evidence:
- Strategic fit: does this buyer and delivery scope support the market you chose?
- Evidence fit: can you show credible references, resources and a response to the stated evaluation criteria?
- Commercial exposure: are pricing, liability, cash flow, mobilization and delivery risks understood?
- Capacity fit: can the named team complete the work in the required weeks?
Record strong, partial or unsupported with a reason. If you use numerical weights internally, agree them before ranking and retain the mandatory gates. A score is a prioritization aid, not a chance of winning.
Approve and revisit the portfolio
Publish the selected bids, investigation caps, declined opportunities and owner of each decision. Reassess when an amendment changes scope, an expert becomes unavailable, a partner withdraws or a more relevant opportunity appears.
After submission, compare actual effort with estimates by work package. Improve future estimates from that history rather than from a generic industry ratio. Track why work was declined as well as what was won.
Bring evidence into the planning meeting
Use buyer and incumbent research to identify questions, and notice reading to gather the actual requirements. Do not infer an easy win from few visible competitors or incomplete award history.
Duke can be evaluated as an input to this research, not as an automatic approval authority. Review your next five pursuits with Duke, bringing source notices and the capacity sheet. Confirm which records and workflows are available in your account.
Editorial owner: Antoine Simon. Method reviewed 13 September 2026. Review by 13 December 2026. All example figures are illustrative; no win-rate improvement is claimed.