Why bids fail? Why bids fail? Research by McIlhiney & Goldring 2010 For Pathways 21 [ UK] Ltd
How has the current economic climate affected your funding levels? y g
Has that affected your preference for smaller or larger contracts? g • 80% said there had been no change g • Remember not every funder uses contracts
How has that affected how you review applications and tenders? pp • Everyone who answered said there has been Everyone who answered said there has been no effect. • Procedures may not change but how strictly • Procedures may not change, but how strictly they are interpreted may do.
What are the main reasons for a bid being refused? • 66% cited ineligibility, lack of capacity and poorly g y, p y p y written tenders. • ‘Organisations design new projects and hope they will receive funding when they need core funding.’ funding. • 40% cited lack of track record and experience.
What are the most important factors for you in deciding whether a bid succeeds or not? g
What is the approximate current ratio between successful and unsuccessful applications? pp • 64% said 1 in 4 of their applications were 64% said 1 in 4 of their applications were successful. • A poor economic climate could push the ratio • A poor economic climate could push the ratio higher if fewer projects mean more bidders fighting for funding fighting for funding.
What is the current approximate percentage of ineligible applications? g pp
What sectors does your moderation/ appraisal system cover ? ? t • Nearly all our funders (73%) provided Nearly all our funders (73%) provided moderation or second level appraisal to the applicants applicants.
Do you have an appeals process? Do you have an appeals process? • The vast majority of our respondents (81%) do The vast majority of our respondents (81%) do not have an appeals process.
Do you have a complaints process? Do you have a complaints process? • 66% of respondents did have a complaints 66% of respondents did have a complaints process. • This discrepancy can perhaps be understood by the fact that public funders must have complaints policies in place.
What capacity building support do you offer unsuccessful applicants? f l li t ? • Unsuccessful applicants were offered mostly Unsuccessful applicants were offered mostly feedback on various levels. • Local CVS were a preferred outlet of advice to f il d hi d failed third sector applicants. li • Most capacity building seemed to relate to preparing tenders and bids. p p g
How many previously unfunded organisations did you support in your last round? • Approximately half said that they had funded i l h lf id h h h d f d d none, with the others giving a range of figures.
Have you increased the number of years f funding available for each project? di il bl f h j t? • The majority of our funders (62 5%) had no The majority of our funders (62.5%) had no change in the number of years with • 3 ‐ 4 years was a common figure given by respondents. d
Do you provide up front payments so projects can start with positive cash flow? j t t t ith iti h fl ? • The vast majority (87 5%) of our respondents The vast majority (87.5%) of our respondents do provide up front payments. • By this stage, funders will have looked for and f found, capacity for delivery and have formed d i f d li d h f d enough confidence in bidders.
What feedback do you give to unsuccessful applicants? li t ? • There was a clear preference for email and / or p / telephone feedback. • Funders want to satisfy queries so as not to alienate bidders, but are cautious of ‘escalating’ feedback into a drawn out procedure. feedback into a drawn out procedure.
What training do you directly or indirectly provide t to applicants to ensure strong applications? li t t t li ti ? • Funders seemed to offer little training to g applicants • Training was often delivered through third parties • Little evidence of dedicated capacity building programmes.
Do you think organisations learn from their mistakes or do you see the same mistakes being y g made repeatedly? • 64% of respondents replied negatively. • “Some groups submit the same application several years running but usually eventually either stop or improve.” u g bu usua y e e ua y e e s op o p o e • “Be as clear as you can about a funder before approaching.” • “Only submit tenders for services that you are able to demonstrate effectively at all stages of the process that you can deliver can deliver... ”
• If you could give one piece of advice to organisations who present bids to you to improve their chances what would it be? • . Check your project against the criteria, then check again, and if in any doubt contact us by telephone to discuss your project. • • A five minute phone call can save us both hours of valuable A five minute phone call can save us both hours of valuable resource. • Only submit tenders for services that you are able to demonstrate effectively at all stages of the process that you can deliver proactively, innovatively and in accordance with the specification. p y, y p
Conclusions Conclusions • On both sides, there is no desire to waste , precious time on applications that have little chance of being funded. • With more public services being delivered by the With bli i b i d li d b th third sector the relationship will have to become more transparent in order for services to be successfully delivered. • Importance funders put on bidder’s capacity to deliver projects contrasted with their reluctance deliver projects contrasted with their reluctance to provide significant capacity building support.
Any questions? Any questions?
NTRL NTRL ‘ Writing Better Bids’ ‐ with Stewart Goldring Writing Better Bids with Stewart Goldring 23 June London Euston 23 June London Euston 25 June Birmingham City Centre 29 June 2010 Leeds, City Centre 15 Nov 2010 London, Euston 17 Nov 2010 Birmingham City Centre 17 Nov 2010 Birmingham, City Centre 19 Nov 2010 Manchester, City Centre
Contact us Contact us Stewart Goldring director@pathways21.net www.pathways21.info 0208 320 1440
Recommend
More recommend
