Few things derail a project faster than a tender that has to be cancelled or set aside. Irregular expenditure findings, bidder objections and court reviews often trace back to a handful of avoidable mistakes made during specification and evaluation. Here are the seven we see most often, and how bid committees can prevent them.
1. Vague or restrictive specifications
A specification that is unclear invites bids that cannot be compared. One that names a brand or describes a single supplier's product limits competition and is open to challenge.
Fix: describe the outcome and performance required, use "or equivalent" where a reference product is unavoidable, and have someone outside the user department read the specification before it is published.
2. Functionality criteria that are not objective
Criteria such as "good experience" or "strong methodology" without a scoring guide lead to inconsistent scores between evaluators.
Fix: publish clear criteria, weightings and the evidence required for each score, and include the minimum qualifying threshold in the bid documents.
3. Changing the rules after bids close
Introducing new criteria, adjusting weightings or relaxing thresholds after closing undermines fairness and is a classic ground for review.
Fix: evaluate strictly against what was published. If the criteria turn out to be flawed, it is usually safer to cancel and re-advertise.
4. Disqualifying bids for non-material reasons
Rejecting a competitive bid because of a minor, non-material omission may cost the institution value for money and can be challenged.
Fix: distinguish between mandatory requirements stated in the bid documents and minor issues that can be clarified without changing the substance of the bid. Record the reasoning either way.
5. Weak conflict-of-interest management
Evaluators who have links to bidders, or who fail to declare them, compromise the entire process.
Fix: require signed declarations from every committee member for every tender, check bidders' directors against employee records where possible, and remove conflicted members before evaluation starts.
6. Arithmetic and preference-point errors
Errors in price calculations or preference points under the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework are surprisingly common. Since the 2022 regulations, organs of state apply an 80/20 or 90/10 system depending on the value of the procurement, with specific goals defined in their own procurement policies.
Fix: use a checked spreadsheet template, have a second person verify calculations, and confirm that the specific goals and points claimed are supported by evidence.
7. Poor records
If it is not written down, it did not happen. Auditors and courts look for the reasons behind decisions, not just the scores.
Fix: keep minutes of every committee meeting, individual score sheets, clarification correspondence and the reasons for recommendations. Confirm that recommended bidders are registered on the Central Supplier Database and tax compliant before award.
A changing landscape
The Public Procurement Act of 2024 is reshaping the legal framework for public procurement in South Africa, and its provisions and regulations are being phased in. Bid committees should follow National Treasury instructions and their own institution's updated policies, and refresh their training as the new regime takes effect.
Training for bid committees
Our Effective Tendering and Bid Evaluation course includes a full mock evaluation as a committee, and Public Procurement and Contract Management covers the wider supply chain management framework. Both can be delivered in-house for specification, evaluation and adjudication committees together.
This article is general information and not legal advice. Always follow the legislation, regulations and instructions that apply to your institution.