Before You Submit: Do the Client, Contractor and Vendor Understand the Same Commitment?

An RFQ can look clear until three parties explain what they think it means. Before a proposal becomes a contract, make those differences visible.

By Mohammed AlAbdulmohsen · B2D Advisory · Approx. 9-minute read

The client expects a working outcome. The bidding company must turn that expectation into a feasible, priced and funded commitment. The vendor offers a package with its own boundaries, conditions and exclusions.

The proposal stage is where those three positions must meet. A polished document cannot compensate for a scope gap, unsupported delivery date or obligation that nobody has properly reviewed.

Start here: an eight-checkpoint assessment

Choose Confirmed only when you can point to evidence. Choose Assumed when your interpretation still needs validation. Choose Unresolved when a reliable answer is missing.

Do not let a total hide a critical gap. Seven confirmed answers cannot neutralize one unresolved obligation that could make the proposal unviable.

Three perspectives, one shared understanding

Bring these answers together before submission. An exclusion in a supplier quotation does not automatically become an agreed exclusion in the contractor’s promise to the client.

Real cases: when understanding becomes expensive

The following cases concern different procurement and contract settings, rather than identical RFQs. They show consequences worth examining before a commitment is made.

Case 01 / Technical & contractual alignment

Following a standard did not settle the obligation

€26.25 million

Agreed remedial costs—not a legal-fee figure

At the Robin Rigg offshore wind farms, foundation connections failed after completion. MT Højgaard had designed to a prescribed industry standard that contained an error. But the contract also required a 20-year lifetime. In 2017, the UK Supreme Court upheld the contractor’s liability under that contractual obligation.

This was more complex than somebody overlooking a page. It exposed the difference between complying with a specified method and meeting a promised result.

Evidence: UK Supreme Court, [2017] UKSC 59, particularly paragraphs 3–6, 22–24 and 37–45.

B2D’s proposed early check

Ask technical and contractual reviewers together: “Does meeting the named standard satisfy every performance obligation?” Clarify the exposure and assess whether the solution, price and risk allocation support it. Earlier review could have made the commitment more explicit; it is not proof the hidden standard error would have been discovered.

Revisit checkpoint 7: Have you reviewed performance promises wherever they appear—including technical schedules?

Case 02 / Client-side financial evaluation

The buyer’s process can create the loss

At least £50 million

Expected direct taxpayer cost reported by Parliament in 2013

The UK Department for Transport cancelled its 2012 West Coast rail franchise competition after errors in the procurement process. Parliament identified flawed calculations of the risk capital required from bidders, including omitted inflation and discretion inconsistent with the stated process.

The Public Accounts Committee reported that most of the expected direct cost would compensate bidders. It also criticised the decision not to employ external financial advisers.

Evidence: UK Parliament, Public Accounts Committee, 26 February 2013.

B2D’s proposed early check

The client should validate its financial model and evaluation rules before inviting commitments. The bidder should understand the financial requirements and raise material ambiguities. Review and challenge are responsibilities on both sides of the table.

Revisit checkpoint 6: Are financial assumptions tested—or merely accepted because the spreadsheet produces an answer?

Case 03 / Scope, interfaces & schedule

A familiar warning from Denver

About $195m → over $290m

Reported baggage-system cost increase—not a single claim or legal award

GAO documented software and hardware problems, major modifications and disputed access to work areas in Denver’s airport baggage project. These factors contributed to delays, and the reported system cost rose substantially. GAO said the cost would largely pass to the airlines.

Evidence: GAO/RCED-95-241FS, August 1995, results in brief and section 1. This connects to B2D’s earlier Denver Insight.

B2D’s proposed early check

Agree scope, interface ownership, site readiness and testing assumptions before pricing the commitment. Define how later changes affect time and money. Reading the RFQ is the starting point; multidisciplinary validation and change control must follow.

Revisit checkpoints 2 and 8: Does the schedule depend on access or decisions that another party has not committed to provide?

From receiving the RFQ to the first kickoff

Use the assessment as a live review record through these stages.

Try the Three-Perspective Challenge

Repeat the assessment before committing

Return to your eight answers. For each assumed or unresolved item, record:

At the first kickoff, the project team should be able to trace the commitments it has inherited. Execution is the next chapter. Understanding the promise belongs here.

Join the discussion

Where do the most expensive gaps begin: the client’s requirement, the contractor’s promise or the vendor’s exclusion?

Choose a perspective and share a lesson without confidential names or documents. What single question would you add to this assessment?