Security Sales and Integration Magazine

To Bid or Not to Bid: That Is the Question

By Bob Grossman | January 18, 2011 | Comments (3) | Post a comment

Part of the value we bring to the table as a consulting firm is the ability to secure our clients competitive bids on their project(s). Our goal is somewhat different than that of an integrator. We want an embarrassment of riches — so many qualified bidders and competitive bids that the owner has to scratch his/her head to decide which of these excellent alternatives to select. The integrators, of course, want to stand out and be the one proposal that makes all of the others appear unworthy.

To accomplish our objective, we need to put some care into the preparation of a bid list for each job. This can be complicated for a firm like ours as we work nationally, and there are great integrators everywhere, and unfortunately not-so-great ones too.

We first look to our past experiences. Do we have integrators in that area that we have worked with? Even if an integrator hasn't won one of our projects in the past, if their bid was responsive and professional, we'll consider them.

Second, we talk to the client. Are there any firms that they have successfully worked with? Who is the incumbent? Sadly, many of our clients come to us precisely because they have no one; if they did, the project might have been a negotiated sale with no need for a consultant. But their local integrators have let them down, and they're ready for someone new.

Third, we look to the key manufacturers on the project to recommend firms that they have successfully worked with. We like that option as it tends to give us well-trained firms and the backing of the manufacturer.

And fourth, we'll occasionally consider firms that have approached us to be on our bid lists.

When the integrators get our RFP package, they have a decision to make — whether or not to bid on the project. This is often just a business decision with no strategy involved. They can look at their skill set, the competition, current and projected workload, and other factors and decide whether or not it's worth their while. If not, why go to the trouble?

Two reasons come to mind, besides the actual project. First, referrals. If a manufacturer is referring you, it's going to want you to bid. If you don't bid on projects for which you are referred, the leads are sure to dry up. No one wants to refer someone who is non-responsive, and deciding not to bid a job is about as non-responsive as it gets. From our perspective, when we are referred a consulting lead, it has to be pretty bad for us to ignore it. We want the referrals, and keeping people who give our name out thinking of us is a key consideration when looking at prospective projects.

Second, the experience is a factor. If you are interested in getting into an area, go ahead and respond. If you don't get the project, seek out feedback as to why you didn't get the job. There are often factors beyond price, and an informal "off the record" phone call with the owner, consultant, or other key players may give you the information you need to win the next one.

As a side note, sometimes you may get leads that really don't speak to your core competencies. Rather than summarily rejecting them, respond with the reason you're not bidding. I'd rather hear from an integrator that they're not interested in bidding a certain type of project but keep them in mind for other types, than to have them just "no bid" our jobs. The former will get them on the right bid lists; the latter will take them off all of our lists - even the Christmas card list!

Review / Comment


You bring up some good points, especially in regards to learning from the bid experience. However I have had many bid situations where I have responded thoroughly and timely and lost the bid. When I have asked for feedback, I was not given any information at all. I feel that if a consultant is willing to accept your bid response, he/she should realize they have a responsibility to provide feedback to the losing bidders when requested.
Loren DuPree
January 20, 2011
was this review helpful?
Perhaps I'll open "Pandora's box" here, but I have two key pet peeves about pre-spec'd bids. One is the proprietary nature of much of the systems equipment. Often, you find fire or access control systems that are available only to a select few (sometimes only one vendor in an area!!). This practice may be easy for the A&E to specify equipment that will meet any need, it's also akin to shooting a fly with a shotgun. Usually the systems being spec'd has far more capacity and capability that the end-user will EVER use or need. They will pay a premium to own a system with that capability, and they will be locked into a service arrangement that can only be met my the local authorized dealer. Severely limiting the end-users options later after the project is completed. Should the end-user ever want to change service providers, they often discover they are locked in to a system that cannot be serviced or repaired by anyone but the authorized vendor in that area. They're only other option is to rip out most of the equipment and start over again, or live with the service response levels they currently have. Unless the end user is a large global customer that TRULY needs "enterprise" level integration for multi-location sites and massive capabilities, all this could be avoided by using off the shelf systems available to all alarm dealers at ADI or other major alarm equipment distributors. Just saying.
Aaron Zebrook
January 21, 2011
was this review helpful?
These are both great comments and I will address each of them in future blog entries. Thanks for reading and respondant.
Bob Grossman
January 25, 2011
was this review helpful?

Other Security Blog Posts

Enterprising Solutions | May 2, 2012

Back to the Basics of Camera Placement

While it’s true that modern cameras can often get you good images under lousy conditions, improving conditions usually improves the image quality dramatically. In that spirit, here are a few camera placement tips that we frequently see overlooked.

Central Station Corner | April 26, 2012

Layering Security Services Helps Meet Customer Needs

As security professionals, we strive to provide the best possible electronic security solutions for our clients that will meet their unique lifestyles or logistics of their business. This element should always remain to be our focus as we survey a potential or existing customer’s premise.

Value-Added Security | April 25, 2012

Tips for Designing Value-Based Solutions

In this blog, Paul Boucherle discusses what integrators must do to design the best solutions for end users.

Under Surveillance | April 19, 2012

Why the Most Successful Managers Support Mentoring

Are you currently mentoring your employees? SSI Managing Editor Rodney Bosch offers some insight on why mentoring your workers is essential to improving your business.

Laying Down the Law | April 16, 2012

Addressing an Alarm Company’s Name Change in Contracts

Ken Kirschenbaum advises readers on how to address changes in contracts after modifying the company's name..