The bid/no-bid decision is one of the most consequential choices in business development. Studies show organizations win only 15-25% of the opportunities they pursue, meaning 75-85% of bid investments yield nothing. Yet most companies make pursuit decisions based on intuition rather than systematic analysis.
Research has identified 34 key factors that predict bid success. Organizations implementing structured bid/no-bid frameworks report 25-40% improvement in win rates and significant reduction in wasted pursuit costs.
The Cost of Poor Pursuit Decisions
The Pursuit Investment
| Activity |
Typical Cost |
| Proposal development |
$50,000 - $500,000+ |
| Solution development |
$25,000 - $200,000 |
| Executive time |
$10,000 - $50,000 |
| Travel/presentations |
$5,000 - $50,000 |
| Opportunity cost |
Immeasurable |
The Win Rate Reality
| Metric |
Typical Performance |
| Overall win rate |
15-25% |
| Blind RFP response |
5-15% |
| Shaped opportunity |
40-60% |
| Incumbent defense |
70-80% |
| No existing relationship |
10-20% |
"Most organizations pursue too many opportunities with too few resources, leading to mediocre proposals on everything rather than excellent proposals on the right things."
— APMP (Association of Proposal Management Professionals)
The 34 Key Factors
Research across multiple studies has identified factors that consistently predict bid success:
Customer Relationship Factors
| Factor |
Impact |
| Existing relationship |
High |
| Executive access |
High |
| Understanding of needs |
High |
| Trust and credibility |
High |
| Past performance |
Medium |
| Reference quality |
Medium |
Competitive Position Factors
| Factor |
Impact |
| Solution fit |
High |
| Differentiators |
High |
| Incumbent status |
High |
| Competitor knowledge |
Medium |
| Price competitiveness |
Medium |
| Team strength |
Medium |
Opportunity Factors
| Factor |
Impact |
| Budget availability |
High |
| Decision timeline |
Medium |
| Procurement process clarity |
Medium |
| Evaluation criteria known |
High |
| Requirements defined |
Medium |
| Political landscape |
Medium |
Internal Capability Factors
| Factor |
Impact |
| Technical capability |
High |
| Delivery capacity |
High |
| Past similar work |
High |
| Team availability |
Medium |
| Partner relationships |
Medium |
| Certification requirements |
Medium |
Strategic Alignment Factors
| Factor |
Impact |
| Strategic fit |
Medium |
| Market positioning |
Medium |
| Growth potential |
Medium |
| Margin expectations |
Medium |
| Risk profile |
Medium |
| Resource investment |
Medium |
The WIRED Framework
One of the most validated bid/no-bid frameworks is WIRED:
W - Win Themes
Can you articulate compelling, differentiated win themes?
| Question |
Indicator |
| What makes us unique? |
Clear differentiators |
| Why should they choose us? |
Compelling value proposition |
| What's our story? |
Coherent narrative |
I - Incumbency
What's the competitive dynamic?
| Situation |
Typical Win Rate |
| We're the incumbent |
70-80% |
| No incumbent |
30-40% |
| Competing against incumbent |
15-25% |
R - Relationships
How strong is our customer connection?
| Level |
Description |
| Strategic |
Executive sponsors, trusted advisor |
| Operational |
Working relationships, positive history |
| Transactional |
Limited contact, no history |
| Cold |
No existing relationship |
E - Evaluate
Have we shaped the opportunity?
| Shaping Level |
Typical Win Rate |
| Created the opportunity |
50-70% |
| Influenced requirements |
40-50% |
| Early engagement |
30-40% |
| RFP-only response |
10-20% |
D - Decision
Do we understand how decisions are made?
| Knowledge Level |
Questions |
| Complete |
Know evaluators, criteria, process |
| Partial |
Know some factors |
| Limited |
Standard assumptions only |
Implementation Framework
Phase 1: Define Criteria
Customize to Your Business
| Step |
Activity |
| 1 |
Analyze past wins and losses |
| 2 |
Identify predictive factors |
| 3 |
Weight by importance |
| 4 |
Define scoring scales |
Standard Criteria Template
| Category |
Weight |
Criteria |
| Customer relationship |
25% |
Access, trust, history |
| Solution fit |
25% |
Technical, price, value |
| Competitive position |
20% |
Differentiation, incumbency |
| Strategic alignment |
15% |
Fit, growth, margin |
| Delivery capability |
15% |
Capacity, experience |
Phase 2: Establish Process
Gate Structure
| Gate |
Decision |
Criteria |
| Gate 0 |
Initial interest |
Strategic fit, opportunity size |
| Gate 1 |
Pursue assessment |
Preliminary scoring |
| Gate 2 |
Bid decision |
Full scoring, resource commitment |
| Gate 3 |
Submission decision |
Final go/no-go |
Approval Matrix
| Opportunity Value |
Approval Level |
| <$100K |
BD Manager |
| $100K-$500K |
VP Sales |
| $500K-$2M |
SVP/GM |
| >$2M |
C-Level |
Phase 3: Score Opportunities
Scoring Scale Example (1-5)
| Score |
Customer Relationship Meaning |
| 5 |
Executive sponsor, preferred vendor |
| 4 |
Strong relationships, positive history |
| 3 |
Some relationships, neutral history |
| 2 |
Limited contact, no history |
| 1 |
Cold, negative history |
Decision Thresholds
| Total Score |
Decision |
| 80%+ |
Strong bid |
| 65-79% |
Bid with conditions |
| 50-64% |
Selective bid |
| <50% |
No bid |
Phase 4: Review and Learn
Post-Decision Analysis
| Analysis |
Purpose |
| Win analysis |
What worked? |
| Loss analysis |
What failed? |
| Scoring accuracy |
Did scores predict outcome? |
| Factor validation |
Are criteria still predictive? |
Scoring Examples
Example 1: High-Score Opportunity
| Criterion |
Weight |
Score |
Weighted |
| Customer relationship |
25% |
5 |
1.25 |
| Solution fit |
25% |
4 |
1.00 |
| Competitive position |
20% |
4 |
0.80 |
| Strategic alignment |
15% |
5 |
0.75 |
| Delivery capability |
15% |
4 |
0.60 |
| Total |
100% |
|
4.40 (88%) |
Decision: Strong bid recommended
Example 2: Low-Score Opportunity
| Criterion |
Weight |
Score |
Weighted |
| Customer relationship |
25% |
2 |
0.50 |
| Solution fit |
25% |
4 |
1.00 |
| Competitive position |
20% |
2 |
0.40 |
| Strategic alignment |
15% |
3 |
0.45 |
| Delivery capability |
15% |
3 |
0.45 |
| Total |
100% |
|
2.80 (56%) |
Decision: No bid (or selective bid with mitigation plan)
Red Flags and Green Lights
Red Flags (No-Bid Indicators)
| Red Flag |
Risk |
| Unknown customer, blind RFP |
Very low win probability |
| Incumbent with strong position |
Wasted investment |
| Requirements don't fit capabilities |
Technical risk |
| Insufficient timeline |
Quality compromise |
| No executive access |
Can't influence |
| Budget undefined |
Uncertain funding |
Green Lights (Bid Indicators)
| Green Light |
Advantage |
| Created or shaped opportunity |
High influence |
| Executive sponsorship |
Access and advocacy |
| Strong differentiators |
Clear value proposition |
| Past successful delivery |
Proven capability |
| Positive competitive position |
Winnable |
| Strategic importance to customer |
High priority |
Best Practices
Process Discipline
| Practice |
Implementation |
| Mandatory scoring |
No bid without assessment |
| Multiple reviewers |
Reduce bias |
| Evidence required |
Support scores with facts |
| Time-boxed |
Decision within defined period |
| Executive oversight |
Appropriate approval levels |
Continuous Improvement
| Activity |
Frequency |
| Win/loss analysis |
Every opportunity |
| Factor validation |
Quarterly |
| Threshold calibration |
Annually |
| Process review |
Annually |
Common Mistakes
| Mistake |
Solution |
| Pursuing everything |
Strict thresholds |
| Overriding scores |
Require documented justification |
| Scoring without evidence |
Evidence-based requirements |
| Ignoring red flags |
Automatic escalation |
| Not learning from losses |
Mandatory loss reviews |
ROI of Bid/No-Bid Frameworks
Investment
| Component |
Cost |
| Framework development |
$10,000 - $50,000 |
| Tool implementation |
$5,000 - $25,000 |
| Training |
$5,000 - $20,000 |
| Ongoing management |
$10,000 - $30,000/year |
Returns
| Improvement |
Value |
| Increased win rate (25%+) |
More revenue |
| Reduced bid costs (30%+) |
Less waste |
| Better resource allocation |
Higher productivity |
| Improved forecasting |
Better planning |
Example ROI
Before Framework:
- 100 pursuits/year
- 20% win rate = 20 wins
- $100,000 average bid cost = $10M investment
- $5M average contract = $100M revenue
After Framework (30% fewer pursuits, 30% higher win rate):
- 70 pursuits/year
- 26% win rate = 18 wins
- $7M investment
- $90M revenue
- $3M savings, similar revenue, better margins
Looking Ahead
2025-2026
- AI-powered win probability prediction
- Automated competitive intelligence
- Real-time opportunity scoring
2027-2028
- Predictive pursuit recommendations
- Autonomous opportunity qualification
- Dynamic strategy adjustment
Long-Term
- Self-optimizing frameworks
- Market-wide pattern recognition
- Intelligent resource allocation
The QuarLabs Approach
Vetoid's Bid/No-Bid Evaluator is purpose-built for pursuit decisions:
- 4 Weighted Categories — Win Probability (35%), Business Value (25%), Technical Feasibility (25%), Risk Assessment (15%)
- 12 Scoring Criteria — Each with specific weights and scoring guidance
- Veto Authority System — Critical criteria (Technical Complexity, Partner Dependency, Quality Risk) can trigger automatic NO-GO
- Pre-flight Checklist — 7 items including test data availability, success criteria definition, and scope documentation
- Decision Outcomes — GO, GO WITH MONITORING, CONDITIONAL, NO-GO, or PENDING based on weighted scores and veto rules
- AI Document Analysis — Auto-assess from uploaded RFPs, proposals, and opportunity documents
Better pursuit decisions mean winning more with less—and that starts with structured evaluation.
Sources
- APMP: Body of Knowledge - Bid/no-bid best practices
- Shipley Associates: Business Development Research - Win factor analysis
- Harvard Business Review: Sales Strategy - Pursuit decision research
- Forrester: Sales Effectiveness - Win rate benchmarks
- IEEE: Decision Analysis - MCDM in business development
- McKinsey: B2B Sales - Pursuit optimization
Ready to improve your pursuit decisions? Learn about Vetoid or contact us to implement data-driven bid/no-bid frameworks.