For franchise networks, groups and consortia
The bids your network never started
In any devolved network, the largest category of lost work is not the bids that were lost. It is the opportunities nobody began, because starting one looked harder than letting it pass. That loss is invisible in every report you have, because a bid that was never started leaves no trace.
The shape of the problem
One contracting entity. Many semi-autonomous units, each deciding for itself whether to tender. A brand that carries the consequences of every submission regardless of which unit made it. Central influence but limited instruction.
That structure produces a consistent set of symptoms: wide variation in submission quality, no visibility of what the network is bidding for, and a long tail of opportunities that simply pass. The instinctive fixes, a template pack or a training day, address the wrong constraint, because the barrier is not knowledge. It is that starting is daunting and nobody wants to be first.
Franchise networks
A brand owner and independently owned franchisees, each bidding locally, each with its own view on whether tendering is worth the effort.
Multi-site and regional groups
One legal entity, many depots or branches, where the bidding capability sits unevenly across the estate.
Buying groups and consortia
Independent members under a shared brand or purchasing arrangement, where central has influence but not instruction.
Multi-academy trusts and federations
A central function and semi-autonomous units, each procuring and bidding separately, with wide variation in capability.
Dealer and installer networks
A manufacturer or principal whose route to public sector work runs through an accredited network it does not own.
How we design these programmes
Four principles, all of which follow from treating adoption rather than price as the constraint.
The constraint is adoption, not price
The reason a local unit does not bid is almost never the fee. It is that nobody there has done it before, the first one looks daunting, and the opportunity cost of a principal spending a weekend on a form is invisible until it has been spent. A programme that attacks the cost of starting will move more volume than one that attacks the unit rate.
Reward the network, not the individual transaction
Mechanisms that recognise cumulative use across the whole network, rather than pricing each unit in isolation, align central and local interests. Central wants adoption. Local wants to not be first. A structure where the network as a whole benefits as usage grows resolves that, and it gives the central sponsor something to point at internally.
One standard, regardless of where the bid came from
The brand risk in a devolved network is variable quality. A submission made by a small unit carries the same name as one made centrally, and a buyer does not distinguish. A programme worth having applies a single standard of production to every submission irrespective of origin, value or urgency, which is usually the reason the central sponsor is interested at all.
Build the asset, then let it lower the cost
A network generates the same answers repeatedly. Capturing that into a maintained content library owned by the client means the same response costs less to produce over time. The commercially honest thing to do with that saving is pass it back rather than retain it as margin, because it is what turns a supplier arrangement into a programme the client defends internally.
What we put behind it commercially
A network programme is a procurement in its own right, and it is usually bought by a central commercial team who will test the arrangement the way they test any supplier. That means published banded pricing rather than quote on application, cost certainty confirmed before work starts, and no charges sitting outside the rate card.
It also means service levels that are measured from records the client can inspect, with defined consequences for failure rather than assurances. Where it is appropriate to the value at stake, we will place part of our own fee behind the outcome. Most advisers will not, and a central sponsor recommending a programme internally benefits from being able to say that theirs does.
Everything above is designed around the structure and volume of the specific network, because a five-site group and a hundred-unit franchise network are different problems wearing the same description. The first conversation is about your structure rather than about our fees.
For the mechanics of how these arrangements are tested and closed, see late-stage bid support.
Network bid programmes: common questions
What is a network bid programme?
A single arrangement covering an entire group of semi-autonomous bidding units: a franchise network, a multi-site group, a consortium or a federation. Rather than each unit procuring bid support separately, or the centre attempting to write everything, one programme applies a consistent standard of production across the whole network, with commercial mechanisms designed to encourage units to use it.
Our franchisees are independent businesses. Can central procure this for them?
Yes, and this is the usual structure. The central entity contracts, and individual units instruct against that arrangement on their own account. What matters is that the commercial terms are visible to every unit without them having to ask, and that instructing is genuinely easy. In a devolved network, friction suppresses demand far more effectively than price does.
How do you get units to actually use it?
By making the first one cheap and easy, and by recognising cumulative network use rather than pricing each unit in isolation. The barrier is starting. A unit that has never tendered does not know what the process involves, does not want to be the first to try, and has no way to judge whether the fee is reasonable. Published, banded pricing and a materially reduced first engagement address all three.
What does the central sponsor get out of it?
Three things, usually in this order: consistent quality on submissions that carry the brand, visibility of what the network is bidding for, and growth in work that is currently not being bid at all. That last one is the real prize. In most networks the largest category is opportunities nobody started, and it is invisible in any reporting because a bid that was never begun leaves no trace.
How is this priced?
On a published, banded basis so that any unit can see what a piece of work costs before asking, with mechanisms that recognise adoption and cumulative use across the network. We do not price network programmes on hourly billing, because a devolved network needs cost certainty at unit level to approve anything internally. The specifics are built around your structure and volume.
Do you handle the central and the local bids?
Both, and the interesting part is that they are different work. Centrally led bids are usually higher value, more complex and more visible. Local bids are smaller, more numerous and more time-sensitive. A programme has to serve both without the local end becoming a poor relation, because the local end is where adoption is won or lost.
Reviewed 22 August 2026.
How many units, and how many are bidding?
Those two numbers usually tell us most of what matters. Tell us your structure and we will tell you where the unstarted work is.
Network bid programme
How many units are in your network, how many currently tender, and who holds the central relationship?