Home / Guides / Bid/no-bid matrix
How to Build a Bid/No-Bid Matrix for UK FM Contracts
The most expensive tender is the one you should not have bid for. Writing a mid-size UK FM response properly costs an SME £3,000 to £8,000 in internal time, more when there are site visits or clarifications. If your win rate on that contract type is 10%, every win costs you nine losses of attention you could have spent elsewhere.
A bid/no-bid scoring matrix is the single highest-return discipline in FM bidding. It forces a structured decision before you commit resource, catches the contracts you will quietly lose anyway, and gives you a written record if the call is later challenged.
The three questions that kill bad bids
Before the formal matrix, three informal gates:
- Do we meet the mandatory thresholds without stretching the truth? If the PQQ requires three comparable case studies in the same sector and we have two, we are bluffing. Experienced evaluators are trained to spot it.
- Do we have a directly relevant case study? Not a project we are proud of. A project that overlaps in scope, scale, sector and risk profile.
- If we lose, will we still know why we bid? "We saw it on the portal" is not a reason. If the strategic, commercial or relational justification is not clear, the bid is unjustified regardless of the score.
The matrix: criteria, weights, scoring
A typical UK FM bid/no-bid matrix has 10 to 13 criteria, each scored 1 (weak) to 5 (very strong), each weighted to reflect how much it predicts your win probability. Total weights sum to 100.
Starting weights below. Adjust to match your business. A compliance-critical contract should weight "evidence availability" and "relevant experience" higher than "price position."
| Criterion | Description | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic fit | Does this contract fit our target sector, client type and scope? | 12 |
| Win probability | Honest assessment. Have we won comparable work? Incumbent advantage? | 12 |
| Price position | Can we price competitively at a margin we can live with? | 10 |
| Relevant experience | Do we have two or more directly relevant case studies with named references? | 10 |
| Evidence availability | Are accreditations, policies and case studies current and ready? | 8 |
| Mobilisation capacity | Can we mobilise without degrading existing contracts? | 8 |
| Delivery capacity | Do we have the operational capacity to deliver well? | 8 |
| Risk profile | Contractual, commercial, operational, reputational risk, acceptable? | 8 |
| Client relationship | Prior relationship, warm intelligence, informed position? | 6 |
| Social value alignment | Can we deliver credible, specific social value against the ITT TOMs? | 5 |
| Sustainability alignment | Can we meet the carbon and sustainability requirements credibly? | 4 |
| Bid resource | Do we have the writing and SME capacity to deliver a strong bid? | 5 |
| Incumbent advantage | If there is an incumbent, is our plan to beat them credible? | 4 |
| Total | 100 |
Decision bands
Once scored, the weighted total sits on a 1 to 5 scale. The decision follows three bands.
- Below 3.2 — No-bid. Decline. The expected cost outweighs the expected value. Record the reasons, the opportunity is a future lesson, not a current bid.
- 3.2 to 3.8 — Conditional bid. What must be true for us to win? Write the conditions down. If they can be met, bid. If not, decline.
- Above 3.8 — Bid with intent to win. Commit resource, run red team, pressure-test every response.
Common mistakes when using a matrix
- Inflating scores to justify a bid. The matrix is useful only when scores are honest. A decision based on dishonest scoring is worse than no matrix at all.
- Scoring alone. Get at least two people to score, then reconcile. One person's 4 is another's 2.
- Ignoring amber. Conditional bids need written conditions, not just a nod. If you cannot write them down, the answer is no-bid.
- Never reviewing the matrix. Re-run against your outcomes quarterly. Which criteria predicted win, which did not? Adjust weights accordingly.
- Using it as the whole decision. Commercial judgement and relational context still matter. The matrix is an input, not a verdict.
When to override the matrix
Sometimes you bid an opportunity that scores low, for strategic reasons: entering a new sector, a loss-leader to protect an existing client relationship, a reference that unlocks future bids. Do it with a named justification, written and approved. The rule is: override the number, not the discipline.
The matrix as a ready-to-use Excel tracker
The UK FM Tender Toolkit includes this bid/no-bid scoring matrix as a live Excel tracker with automatic calculations and decision bands, plus a written decision record to retain as audit trail.
Get the toolkit, £129