The Process of a Rational Mind

“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.”

In Joseph Heller’s novel, Catch-22, wartime fighter pilots were deemed fit to fly whether they acted rationally or irrationally when facing almost certain death. They were damned if they did, damned if they didn’t.

The theme of Catch-22, and being punished for rational thinking, got me musing over price and quality evaluation in public sector procurement. We’re familiar with the shift from Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) to Most Advantageous Tender (MAT). Hurrah! Our rational mind tells us that choosing a balance between quality and price will generate value for money. But will this subtle shift discourage a ‘race to the bottom’ in public sector procurement? If it does, it will be pretty revolutionary.

I had a look at the last 30 pre-February 2025 public sector tenders. 25 of these bids (83%) had a quality weighting of 50% or more. But the lowest price won 60% of the time. Six of the tenders had a quality weighting of 70% or more, and five of these were still awarded to the lowest priced bid. And the price variance wasn’t huge in most cases.

Because of the pressure contracting authorities are under, they understandably often default to measuring value in price terms. We get it. It’s hard to justify not choosing the lowest price when your performance indicators are all about saving money. But, paradoxically, the approach often doesn’t serve anyone (most of all the ones making the rules).

Here are three Catch-22-busting (possibly rational) thoughts on the subject.

1. If you price tenders for long-term sustainable value for money, be explicit about what you’re offering beyond the specification. What will you do that your lower-priced competitors won’t? Demonstrate where you’ve achieved additional benefits, and long-term cost savings, for other clients.
2. If the public sector is serious about getting value for money, maybe a more rational approach to tender evaluation is needed. Encourage clients and consultants to add site visits, live scenario planning, or interviews with the delivery team to ‘add weight’ to the quality evaluation. If the buyer has a market-tested fixed budget, there is potentially an option for the tender to be evaluated on quality alone. And when you can’t see how the lowest price can possibly deliver the specification sustainably? Ask for more transparency around the sense-checking of abnormally low pricing.
3. Keep data on your quality and price scoring. Feed it into your opportunity evaluation process. Only tender for clients who consistently value quality over a race to the bottom.