From Water Tables To Win Themes

This article first appeared in Bid Solutions’ Bidding Quarterly periodical in November 2023.

I found it a wonderful challenge to pivot into bid consultancy after 20 years’ civil engineering and business development, and it’s been a privilege to support clients’ bids for the 11 years since.

Martin’s announcement of the theme for BQ17 had me pondering: How much of their training do people with a ‘civils’ background use in bidding?

The way I look at it, a lot. There are the technical subjects, of course, as well as knowing what matters most, to whom it matters, and why.

I’m reminded of a friend’s story from his undergraduate course in which a student asked, “Will you be handing out notes at the end?” The reply from behind the lectern was, “Absolutely, I’ll give you all the notes you’ll ever need; they’re called the library.” I’m glad teaching methods have evolved, as has the predilection for collaboration (and media to support it), but the subtext of the reply, which I now view through a bidding lens, remains applicable:

We must know how and where to find information to fuel proposals based on what really matters to the client and stakeholders, not merely nice-to-have material that demonstrates knowledge but adds no value.

So, is it necessary to have a civil engineering background to support bids in that discipline? You might think a civil engineer would say, “Of course,” but I’m actually more inclined to think it depends on the role/s we undertake and when in the bid lifecycle we do so.

Bid strategy meetings that I’ve led or attended as a contributor have focused on matters to shape the overall proposals, that brought win themes to life. We’ve addressed open questions to probe:

• How the client and stakeholders would benefit
• How proposal strengths could be threaded through the bid
• In what ways strategy themes contributed to reducing risk for the client and other stakeholders.

Strategy sessions hover at the level of enablers, of which examples in civil infrastructure bids are logistics planning, digital engineering, and design for manufacture and assembly. A working understanding of those topics enables us to call on industry trends and to challenge ourselves for better performance. Examples of such areas are carbon reduction (the PAS 2080 standard comes to mind) and managing data over the whole asset lifecycle so the procuring client has actionable digital files for operation and maintenance (ISO 19650 is relevant here). Industry knowledge helps to guide challenge, as long as we leave plenty of latitude for every contributor to inform thinking so we avoid being blinkered.

At the more detailed level of response planning, the ‘way an industry talks’ is important. I recall meetings in which we discussed, for example, EPB TBMs, FATs, ITPs, the DMRB, D3M roads, and UTXs*. I’m not a fan of initialisms, acronyms and abbreviations, but they have their place when page or character limits are imposed and to prevent cumbersome long-string repetition. Subject matter experts often live by such terms because they’re so familiar with them. If we’ve previously used terms in their various contexts, we’re more likely to find meetings make sense and to contribute confidently. Of course, these things can be learned – and let’s remember it’ll be a sad day when we stop learning – but tight bid timescales mean prior working knowledge is useful.

I’ve worked on bids with colleagues whose core experience lay outside engineering but who learned throughout past bids from subject matter experts and technical reading, or whose roles didn’t require technical knowledge. Those colleagues’ time on the bids was successful because they capitalised on their transferable strengths: leading, co-ordinating, writing, reviewing, and other tasks. In those situations, it’s really great to learn from people’s experience in other sectors.

When reviewing responses, particularly in early reviews, I’ve found it helpful to add people with less industry and technical knowledge into the experienced reviewer mix for feedback. Theirs is as valid as experienced participants’ feedback because it’s usually provided without presumption of assessors’ detailed knowledge. Feedback is likely to come with questions teasing out items worth considering further. Questions like “How is this point important to the client?” or “Why does this matter?” are so very important.

If a response makes sense to someone not deeply familiar with the subject or a technical aspect, it’s because:

• Technical detail is presented in language accessible to non-technical readers. This is important when responses might be read by secondary assessors not as familiar with the particular discipline. It’s always safer not to assume someone experienced in one specialism understands others in as much detail.
• The response provides the level of technical detail required to answer the question, not excessive material demonstrating knowledge but adding little value or, worse, burying what matters most.
• Graphics are presented as great information design to make clear how processes work and how activities interact to achieve benefits for the procuring client and stakeholders.

The definition of civil engineering making the rounds in my student days was:

…the art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man…

Thankfully, the world has progressed to more inclusive messaging, but I love the part about ‘directing the great sources of power’. In bidding, we direct the great sources of team power to navigate the bid process and craft proposals that make an impact.

Whether or not we join a bid with immediately relevant experience, we must keep learning from each other, asking questions to make sure we haven’t missed a trick, and, crucially, enjoy and embrace what we do.

* In case you’re wondering: EPB TBMs – Earth pressure balance tunnel boring machines; FATs – Factory acceptance tests; ITPs – Inspection and test plans; DMRB – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; D3M – A dual carriageway with three lanes each way and hard shoulders, built as a motorway formation (but a non-motorway road could also be built this way, just to keep things interesting); UTX: Under-track crossing in railways