Why FM Tender Data Decides Your Price Before Bidders Do

Three bidders. Three prices. Three different assumptions about the same estate. The problem isn't necessarily that the bidders have approached the procurement differently. Sometimes the information they were given left them no choice.

An incomplete asset register. Reactive volumes from systems that don't agree. Unclear equipment information. Incomplete TUPE data. Maintenance history that doesn't tell the full story. When bidders cannot verify something, they have to decide how to protect themselves and that usually finds its way into the price.

What bidders do with data they cannot verify. A bidder has to price the information available to it. If the asset register says one thing and the maintenance history suggests another, the bidder can make an assumption, qualify its response or build protection into the price.

The client may know that the information is incomplete. The bidder knows it is taking the risk. Those are not the same position. Contingency is often the bridge between the two.

The five data sets that move an FM price most

Asset register and criticality. What assets are there, where are they, what condition are they in and how critical are they?

Planned, reactive and statutory maintenance history. Planned maintenance tells only part of the story. Reactive volumes and inspection history can reveal another layer of risk.

Staffing and TUPE. People are part of the commercial baseline. Incomplete information can affect the resource model, mobilisation assumptions and price.

Equipment, systems and CAFM readiness. A tender may rely on information that is difficult to extract, inconsistent or not ready to transfer. That affects both pricing and mobilisation.

Spend and performance history. Historic spend can establish a baseline, while performance information helps explain what that spend actually delivered.

What to do when the data genuinely isn't there

Sometimes the information simply does not exist. The answer is not to make it look as though it does. Flag the gap. Tell the market what is known and what is not. Build rectification and validation into the procurement process. Be explicit about the information bidders should use and how gaps will be treated.

Silence does not make a risk disappear. It just gives every bidder the opportunity to price it differently.

Treating data as a managed workstream, not an appendix

Define what is required. Collate the available information. Validate it. Agree the format so it can be analysed. Then plan how verified information will migrate into the future CAFM system. If data is cleaned up for the tender but nobody has thought about how it will be used after award, the problem has simply moved into mobilisation.

An example:

We were asked to review why an FM contract wasn't working. The answer was already sitting in the procurement that created it. The maintenance tender had been based on an incomplete asset register and reactive volumes taken from several systems. The limitations in the data were not properly communicated to tenderers and no rectification or validation had been built into the process. Suppliers made different assumptions. They priced different risks. The bids looked comparable. They weren't.

On the follow-up procurement, we developed a more reliable commercial baseline, reducing exposure to hidden liabilities, inflated contingencies and failed data migration.

The important change was treating data as a managed workstream. Critical assets, planned, reactive and statutory records, staffing and TUPE, equipment and performance information all needed to be defined, collated and validated. The format also needed to support analysis and future CAFM migration.

How we support tender data validation

The useful starting point is not a data cleanse for its own sake. It is understanding what bidders actually need to price the requirement consistently. The principle is simple: give bidders enough reliable information to price the same requirement. Where you cannot, deal with the gap openly rather than letting the market price it for you.

The question to ask before your next tender is simple.

Is your asset data genuinely tender ready?

And if you aren't sure, ask us to review it for you.

Landmark & Associates are RICS accredited facilities management consultants with 25+ years' sector experience and £3bn+ of FM services procured.