ᐅ Tendering software at an affordable price

No digital lockout. Professional tendering software is most useful when the bidder receives the results directly as a file and can fill out their offer within that file—then it saves the client (such as a school center or similar) time. However, for a single-family house, usually only bidders will participate who cannot even open such tender files, so paper remains the compatible "format." Software affordable for private individuals does not do more than typical tax-declaration shareware. And: the experience must be present in the user; software does not generate this. If the user admits to being ambitious but still a layperson or beginner, the advice logically must be: "do not expect the software to work magic." Also: "layperson software usually does not produce output formats that meet industry standards," making it practically just a nice gimmick.

alexisan schrieb:

You are definitely taken more seriously in the trade...

You mean when the tiler sees that every page of the tender texts has the footer "created with Maggi-Fix for self-hiring homeowners," he stands at attention?

WilhelmRo schrieb:

For me, that happens when I recommend "Sweet Home 3D" to create the floor plan.

Regardless of which layperson software is used for planning: 1. non-professional planners regularly show significant deficits in spatial imagination and sense of proportion compared to purely drawing skills; 2. the software gives no warning if you design passages that are too narrow or stairs with insufficient headroom; 3. layperson software usually cannot produce export formats that a professional can import into their architectural CAD; 4. the software is not worth it if you are only planning a single house (even if you run through twenty variants): even layperson software requires familiarization, which only pays off after several projects—until then, traditional paper is faster; 5. sketching by hand practices a sense for appropriate dimensions faster than moving objects with a mouse.

As for 6. my personal opinion that this stuff is only good for measuring distances is subjective and thus does not count as an "argument" anyway.

In my opinion, the path to a successful tender does not run through software that neatly plots the documents but much more through classic steps:

A) A good tender stands or falls with the selection of reliable participants—just blindly faxing the entire industry directory to everyone brings little;

B) A major motivation boost for tender participants is receiving the request through a personal conversation rather than—whether analog or digital—impersonally choosing some postal method;

C) Participating in a tender costs time = money. One invests this more willingly if there is a fair chance of winning the contract. This is not given if one fears the client sent the request to twenty firms in the same way.

WilhelmRo schrieb:

We run it quite blatantly—we get an offer [...], remove all prices, and then send it on as a request.

At least this makes the request clearly recognizable as a price comparison inquiry—however, mainly those bidders who want to win contracts based on price will participate.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

[...] the bidders who participate are mainly those aiming to win contracts by offering the lowest price.

These are the contracts that eventually become profitable only through change orders. There is nothing better for a seasoned contractor than receiving incomplete tender documents, submitting a correspondingly low bid, and knowing full well that they will ultimately get paid.

WilhelmRo schrieb:

In our case, it works quite boldly – we request a quote (often including a personal meeting to discuss exactly what we want), delete all prices, and then forward it as a request along with the relevant information (building folder, etc.).

That’s legitimate, but for this reason, detailed quotes from reputable companies now come at a direct cost—and rightly so.

untergasse43 schrieb:

Legitimate, but for that reason, detailed quotes from reputable companies now usually come with a fee. And rightfully so.

20 trades - 2 to 4 inquiries each - never paid anything.

WilhelmRo schrieb:

20 trades - 2 to 4 inquiries each - never paid anything.

“Lucky” you.

untergasse43 schrieb:

Legitimate,

Well, but at least with a thin line to “antisocial.” Considering it “legitimate” to expect that someone must always be eager to make even the smallest profit is already a decline in social standards. It becomes antisocial when the client at the same time applies the “Saint Florian principle,” expecting their employer to make enough profit to pay them a generous salary. At that point, it should be clear to everyone that profit is necessary. There is a causal link between low margins and a high risk of insolvency. No client really benefits if their contractor (= guarantor!) disappears prematurely because they can no longer sustain their business.

The client’s mentality that “the architect should award the contract to the lowest bidder - and if in any trade the lowest bidder is not the cheapest, I will ‘cleverly’ intervene in the tender results (and replace the person concerned) to get my house for less money” is short-sighted. The price for this risk is a “mixed bag” of tradespeople on site—compared to the architect assembling a team of reliable specialists who work together in proven quality—and ultimately more trouble spots.

I’ll try to illustrate what the client’s supposedly brilliant strategy actually does with a soccer analogy: they remove all defenders from their team and put only forwards on the field. A worse goal difference is no coincidence but “home-made.” And the accompanying expert will need to show more yellow cards.

Hopefully, the original poster is looking for a different approach here, but the right readers among those following this discussion are welcome to take note.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

Well, at least it borders closely on being "antisocial." Considering it "legitimate" to expect that someone should always be motivated to make even the smallest profit is really a decline in social standards.

I was just trying to be nice once. By the way, I agree with your points 100%. As you said, he was lucky or just happened to work with companies that really needed it.

untergasse43 schrieb:

or just went to the companies that really needed it.

Unfortunately, when you tender with a focus on "price-consciousness," you systematically increase their share within the overall team. The leaders in the list of bidders who lose tenders are, in second place, the clients who see "less money for the value" as the main goal of the tender; and in first place, those clients who see this as the sole objective.

In contrast, I find it more desirable to reduce the share of those in need within the team.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/