Use this bid/no-bid framework when a public tender looks relevant but preparing a response will consume scarce sales, technical and legal time. The output is a documented decision: bid, no-bid, or hold pending named evidence.
Download the editable, unbranded bid/no-bid checklist. It is a plain-text Markdown file with no registration requirement; save it locally or copy the fields into your team's tracker.
Gate 1: can this bid be compliant?
Read the notice, documents and amendments for the specific lot. List each mandatory requirement, its source page or clause, the evidence required, the owner and the deadline. Check eligibility, exclusions, registrations, financial standing, required experience, certifications, language and submission rules.
For EU procurement within Directive 2014/24/EU, Articles 57 and 58 distinguish exclusion grounds and selection criteria; Article 67 addresses award criteria. These are different tests. Apply the tender's governing rules and national implementation, rather than treating an EU example as a universal rule. Read the Directive and current consolidated version.
A missing mandatory capability is not a low score that attractive revenue can cancel out. Establish whether a permitted partner or equivalent evidence can close the gap. If the answer is uncertain, use the official clarification channel and set a decision deadline.
Gate 2: can we deliver and accept the exposure?
| Question | Evidence to obtain | Decision owner |
|---|---|---|
| Can we meet mobilisation and service levels? | Resourced delivery plan and dependencies | Delivery lead |
| Can we fund the contract? | Cash-flow scenario including payment delays and securities | Finance |
| Can we accept the terms? | Review of liability, penalties, IP and termination | Commercial/legal |
| Can we submit a credible response? | Named writers, references, priced solution and review time | Bid lead |
| Is the scope sufficiently clear? | Clarifications and document conflict log | Solution lead |
A framework ceiling is not guaranteed revenue. A published estimate is not a disclosed winning price. Cost the work you would actually undertake, including mobilisation, support and the cost of preparing the bid.
Gate 3: choose between eligible pursuits
Score strategic fit, evidence against the evaluation criteria, delivery confidence and commercial attractiveness from 0 to 3. Use 0 for unsupported, 1 for weak, 2 for adequate and 3 for strong. Write a reason and source beside each score.
This is an illustrative internal prioritisation scale, not a validated predictor of winning. Set your own approval threshold before scoring the opportunity; retain the hard gates above. A sum should help compare eligible pursuits, not produce a fictitious win probability.
Worked decision
Illustrative case: a service tender fits the offer and the team has relevant references. The mobilisation date depends on transferring equipment, but the asset inventory is absent. Finance can price the base service; delivery cannot yet confirm the transition.
Decision: hold until the buyer answers the asset question. Assign the solution lead, record the clarification deadline, and cap exploratory bid effort. If the answer leaves mobilisation infeasible, record no-bid. A competitor's historical presence alone would not establish that the competition is unwinnable.
Record what will change the decision
Capture the lot, official notice URL, document version, decision date, approver, accepted risks and reassessment trigger. For a conditional bid, every condition needs an owner and due date. Stop work when a hard gate fails; do not leave “hold” opportunities consuming bid capacity indefinitely.
After the outcome, compare the original reasoning with what happened. Record withdrawals and no-bids as well as awards. Avoid generic industry win-rate targets unless you have a comparable, documented sample.
Continue the workflow
Use the notice-reading guide to collect the facts first, tender red flags to challenge commercial assumptions, and buyer intelligence to test the competitive argument.
To evaluate support for this process in Duke, bring a completed checklist and the public source documents to a product discussion. Ask which steps can be demonstrated with your tender.
Reviewed 13 September 2026. The scoring framework and example are editorial operating guidance, not legal advice or a prediction of tender outcomes.