Every Mark Sends a Message in Playground Tenders
When a play equipment company receives a tender invitation, the initial instinct is to examine the scoring matrix and pose critical questions:
“Is this project a suitable fit for us?”
“Do we stand a chance of winning the tender?”
“Does the client share our values?”.
Some Councils adhere to consistent scoring plans for all projects, rarely altering them over time. In contrast, others meticulously adjust scoring methods for each project to match site-specific requirements.
Regardless of the approach, it’s essential to recognise that every detail in your specification and every percentage in your scoring matrix can significantly influence a play company’s decisions. The pivotal first decision is whether to submit a response. For instance, if a specification mentions inclusion, aesthetics, creativity, and durability, but the tender’s scoring system neglects these aspects, some companies may infer that these elements hold little importance and may decline participation. Similarly, if a tender heavily emphasises cost savings, dissuading companies from utilizing the entire budget, those employing higher-specification materials might be deterred.
Instead of primarily scoring cost, there are numerous alternative methods to reward innovative submissions. This can include allocating points for Gender, Inclusivity, Sustainability, and Social Responsibility.
Some of the ways to respond…
Points for sustainability can be earned through various means, such as incorporating items made from recycled plastic, investing in carbon offsetting to ensure carbon-neutral project delivery, collaborating with local timber recycling initiatives, and showcasing the company’s efforts in reducing its carbon footprint. Once a company has decided to submit, the weighting of marks will influence their design decisions. 5% of marks allocated to inclusion and accessibility for example, will result in a very different submission to a tender specification that attributes 25% of the marks to design.