What to expect from single source bidding

A QDC, including qualifying sub-contracts (QSC), is a contract that has a value of £5 million or more (£25m for QSCs), under which the government procures goods, works or services for defence purposes.

Still following? Good. The regulatory body that oversees this process is called the Single Source Regulations Office, or SSRO. The SSRO is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Ministry of Defence. Its role is to ensure that

“good value for money is obtained in government expenditure on qualifying defence contracts, and that persons who are parties to qualifying defence contracts are paid a fair and reasonable price under those contracts.”

The SSRO aims to strike a balance between achieving value for money on government expenditure and fair and reasonable prices for contractors. It does this by subjecting qualifying contracts to price control and by requiring suppliers to provide an increased level of transparency.

The SSRO is a relatively recent creation. The Defence Reform Act 2014 achieved Royal Assent on 14th May 2014, which led to the creation of the SSRO. And QDC/QSCs began the following year, on 1st April 2015.

As of June 2020, the SSRO was notified of 315 contracts that became QDCs/QSCs. The SSRO has stats on 304 of these qualifying contracts. The estimated total contract price of all 304 QDCs/QSCs was £43.1 billion. No small beer.

And just between April and December 2022, 42 contracts became QDCs, and five contracts became QSCs, with a combined estimated price of £2.1bn.

It’s wrong to say there’s ‘no competition’. If you are the chosen one, then you can be certain that your competitors are lobbying hard against that decision. They may even be successful through the courts and force a delay, cancellation, or competitive procurement. Will they win? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, their actions will have a negative impact on you and your customer.

There’s also a ‘do nothing’ option if the requirement recedes or you can’t offer a compliant solution within budget and time.

Another form of competition is a reduction in scope brought about by budget pressure elsewhere. This is often the case where the MoD’s priorities change and the fleet of 200 becomes 50, for example.

Yes, and it’d be more appropriate to call it a ‘contract award strategy’. As I’ve already described, there are many threats to going the distance and signing on the dotted line. Your strategy should therefore be about:

• Mitigating risks and building customer trust
• Removing challenges
• Technical and commercial compliance
• Offering a solution that delivers the specified outcomes
• Making sure you understand and apply the rules of a QDC — especially around defined pricing structures.

Yes, but in different ways. There should still be clear messaging supported by quantified evidence that gives the customer the ammo it needs to get through their approval gates and fend off any anxiety about awarding a QDC to you in the first place. Remember those competitors lobbying hard? Or the concerns about whether you can deliver a compliant solution within budget and time? Or the competing pressures for money? That’s what your messaging is defending against.

Yes, with a different emphasis. This executive summary isn’t the time or place for jargon, superlatives, or hyperbole. That’s true of any executive summary, but it’s especially so here.

The emphasis of your executive summary should be more on your solution and how it meets the customer’s requirements. In that regard, it’s more of a solution summary, than the traditional sales-focussed executive summary.

Remember: the customer has been through the process of selecting your company, so you don’t need to cover that again by saying how great you are

The executive summary will be the only place in the whole proposal where you can convey your messaging. Normally, these messages are used throughout a proposal, but not here. This is because the purpose of the proposal is to form a contract that you’ll deliver against. The content should therefore be a factual description of what you will do, how you will do it and when. There’s no room for superfluous information and ‘win themes’ are unnecessary.

In the words of the SSRO:

‘The Single Source Contract Regulations require contractors to provide to the SSRO a cost breakdown of the contract price for a QDC or QSC by a defined pricing structure (DPS). The objective of the DPS is to establish a single, centrally available, comprehensive data set that, in conjunction with other contract data, can be used to determine relationships between costs and outputs, and record the estimated and outturn costs, for every QDC and QSC. This will enable future analysis such as parametric and benchmarking analysis, while assisting effective contract monitoring.’

So, the answer is “no”: you can’t make more money if there’s no competition.

Yes, absolutely! You still need to organise and lead a diverse team of experts to create a written and costed proposal, just like any bid. This means doing all the things you’d normally do, for example:

• Planning
• Team management
• Clarification Q&A
• Reviewing
• Governance
• Submitting by a set deadline.

One notable difference is that bid costs are classed as ‘allowable costs’ that you can charge for, which are then deducted from the customer’s budget. The more you spend on the bid, the less you’ll have to play with in delivery.

The focus of reviews changes from win themes, value propositions and scoring to technical and commercial compliance, clarity, viability, and risk. That means you’ll need to think about who’s suitably qualified and experienced to be a reviewer, how to instruct them, and when. It might even be possible to ask the customer to review a draft, as it’s in their interests to get the best possible bid without fear of being unfair to competing bidders.

Your interaction with the customer is likely to be far more frequent, but no less formal. In fact, the increased scrutiny from the SSRO can make the relationship more formal and regulated than normal.

It’s possible to have regular clarification meetings to run through any questions with them and it’s also common to have regular solution review workshops; otherwise the relationship and interaction is similar to a competitive dialogue type bid with structured sessions on defined topics throughout the procurement.

Yes. The invitation to tender, or ITT, will mostly look and feel familiar to a competitive defence bid with some differences. There’ll be a Specification of Requirements rather than a Q&A style format, and there won’t be a scoring criteria. The usual inconsistencies and complicated instructions will still be there, however.

Good writing practices are just as important as they are with any bid. Writing with clarity and purpose improves understanding and reduces ambiguity.

Remember: the proposal will form the contract, so everything that’s written has consequences

It’s always a good idea to ask your commercial team to review the proposal because they’ll be responsible for negotiating the contract on which it’s based.

The proposal content is likely to be very technical and method-statement based. Be very careful that any non-technical bid writers don’t materially change the content without understanding the consequences or seeking confirmation from the subject matter expert first.

As for graphic design, it still has a part to play if it helps improve understanding, reduce the word count, and convey complex messages. It’s far less important to spend money on fancy binders and other materials.

It’d be rude not to! You should find a way to celebrate the effort that goes into developing the bid.

Do you have other questions on what to expect from single source bidding? Get in touch with BidCraft today for more information and guidance.