Win Rates in Bidding: Why the Number Only Tells Part of the Story
It All Begins Here
When somebody first suggested I publish my bid win rate on my website, my initial reaction was honestly… I don’t actually know what it is.
Which probably sounds slightly ridiculous for someone working in bids.
But I think that’s part of growing a business sometimes. You spend so much time focused on delivery, supporting clients and getting through deadlines that you don’t always stop and build the systems and reporting side of things properly until later. So I ended up going back through every single bid I’d worked on since starting the business and reviewing the outcomes manually. Which, in hindsight, was probably a bigger job than I anticipated.
The number itself was interesting. My win rate now sits at 71%.
And yes, I completely understand why businesses ask that question when they’re looking for bid support. If you’re investing in a bid writer or bid consultant, of course you want to understand how likely you are to be successful. It makes total sense.
But the more I looked at the data, the more I realised that the headline percentage actually only tells a very small part of the story.
It doesn’t tell you how many losses there are v bids still awaiting an outcome, or those abandoned by the contracting authority that we’ll never know what the outcome would have been.
But it goes beyond interpretation of stats. Because if the conversation stops at “what’s your win rate?”, neither side really gets much insight into how likely that particular business is to be successful moving forward.
And I think that’s the more important conversation.
What really matters is understanding where that business is currently sitting in terms of bid readiness, what they’re trying to achieve, whether they’re pursuing the right opportunities in the first place, and what gaps might exist that need addressed before they’re realistically in the best position to compete.
Sometimes businesses come into bidding assuming success is mainly about writing. And of course, writing matters. Strategy matters. Structure matters. Communication matters. But often the bigger issues sit underneath that.
Do they have the evidence needed to support strong responses? Do they have relevant case studies? Are their operational processes mature enough? Is their pricing competitive? Are they actually ready for the level of contract they’re bidding for? Those are the things that tend to have the biggest impact on outcomes over time.
One of the most interesting things I found when reviewing my own bid results was that quite a large proportion of the unsuccessful bids had actually scored very strongly on quality. In several cases, they were top scoring or joint top scoring technically, but lost out commercially on price.
And that’s where win rates become quite nuanced. Because if you only look at the final outcome, it’s easy to assume a loss means the bid itself wasn’t strong. But procurement is rarely that straightforward. Sometimes clients are pricing themselves out of opportunities before the submission even goes in. Sometimes they’re targeting opportunities that aren’t quite the right fit yet. Sometimes they’re still developing their evidence base or operational maturity.
I think there’s a tendency in bidding to focus heavily on outcomes - wins and losses - but less focus on whether businesses are actually building the foundations needed for sustainable success long term. Because bidding successfully is rarely just about one tender.
It’s about developing:
stronger evidence
clearer messaging
better internal systems
more realistic bid/no bid decisions
better understanding of where you’re competitive
and sometimes, being honest about where you’re not quite ready yet
I’ve also realised how important it is for businesses themselves to track this information properly. Not just consultants like me monitoring our own performance, but businesses looking at:
what they’re winning
what they’re losing
where they consistently score well
where they struggle
whether they’re pursuing the right opportunities
and what patterns are emerging over time
Those patterns are where the useful insight usually sits. A business might discover they consistently perform strongly in one sector but struggle in another. Or they may realise they’re repeatedly losing on commercial scoring despite strong quality responses. Or perhaps they’re spending huge amounts of resource bidding for opportunities that were never realistically winnable in the first place. That’s why the bid/no bid process matters so much.
And if I’m honest, looking back at some of the bids I’ve worked on over the last few years, there are probably opportunities that maybe shouldn’t have gone forward at all. Not because the businesses weren’t good businesses, but because they weren’t quite ready for that particular opportunity at that particular time. But equally, there’s value in that learning too.
Sometimes businesses need to go through the process, experience the gaps firsthand, receive the feedback and understand what’s required before they can really move forward strategically. Losing can be frustrating, but it can also be incredibly clarifying.
One thing I’ve become much more aware of since starting my own business is that bidding is often treated as something reactive. A tender lands, everyone scrambles, documents get pulled together, deadlines become stressful, and people hope for the best. But the businesses who tend to perform most consistently are usually the ones investing in readiness before the opportunity even arrives.
They’re building their evidence libraries.
They’re refining their messaging.
They’re understanding their differentiators.
They’re reviewing pricing models.
They’re learning from previous submissions.
And over time, that preparation compounds.
So yes, win rates matter. Of course they do. They’re useful indicators and they absolutely should be tracked. But I think what matters much more is the conversation underneath the number.
Why are bids winning?
Why are they losing?
Where are the patterns?
What needs strengthened?
Are the right opportunities being pursued?
And what does success actually look like for that business long term?
A headline percentage on its own can never really answer those questions - and honestly, I think the deeper conversations are far more interesting anyway.