Quality of tender documents: case studies from the UK

Tendering is one of the stages in construction procurement that requires extensive information and documents exchange. However, tender documents are not always clear in practice. The aim of this study was to ascertain the clarity and adequacy of tender documents used in practice. Access was negotiated into two UK construction firms and the whole tender process for two projects was shadowed for 6-7 weeks in each firm using an ethnographic approach. A significant amount of tender queries, amendments and addenda were recorded. This showed that quality of tender documentation is still a problem in construction despite the existence of standards like Co-ordinated Project Information (1987) and British Standard 1192 (1984 and 1990) that are meant to help in producing clear and consistent project information. Poor quality tender documents are a source of inaccurate estimates, claims and disputes on contracts. Six recommendations are presented to help in improving the quality of tender documentation. Further research is needed into the recommendations to help improve the quality of tender documents, perhaps in conjunction with an industry-wide investigation into the level of incorporation of CPI principles in practice.

Documents as 'critical incidents' in organisation to consumer communication

A diary study tracked the paper documents received by nine UK informants over one month. Informants gave simple ratings of individual documents’ attractiveness and the ease of understanding them; more detailed reactions to the documents were gathered through informant diaries and follow-up interviews. The detailed reactions extended beyond the feedback gathered through the rating task. Informants showed sensitivity to the content, language, design and circumstances of receipt of documents, with indications that they developed opinions of originating organizations based on their experience of using their documents. Documents that failed to provide all the information needed, that failed to make their intentions clear (or obscured their intentions) or that were perceived as miss-targeted received negative comment. Repeat experiences of receiving either well- or poorly-conceived documents strengthened informant reactions to individual originating organizations. The paper concludes with recommendations for steps document originators, writers and designers need to take to prepare documents that enhance organization to consumer communication. We recommend that organizations evaluate and act on consumers’ reactions to their documents, beyond user testing in document development or scorecard ratings in use.