Any business in pursuit of government contracts and large-scale projects must have a solid understanding of the relevant procurement processes. Even minor details are essential to tendering strategies and success in winning contracts.

A vital part of planning should revolve around the type of tender being applied for – forecasted or open, each of which requires a different approach. 

It’s useful to think of forecasted tenders as a strategic compass, offering organizations early insight into future procurement needs and the ability to plan accordingly.

These forecasts enable businesses to align capabilities with upcoming demands, build partnerships, and refine bids well before formal bids are invited, whereas open tenders provide immediate, accessible opportunities that are publicly advertised and open to all qualified bidders.

However, this wide accessibility means there will be much competition.

In this article, we take a closer look at both these types of tender and provide a straightforward framework to help you to optimize your strategy and plan proactively.

Understanding forecasted tenders

Forecasted tenders are typically published by procuring entities such as government agencies or large corporations to define upcoming procurement requirements. 

These tenders provide a broad spectrum of information, such as the scope of goods and services that will be required, and also often the contract value. They are, in effect, a preview of what is in the procurement pipeline. 

These forecasts provide the answers to two central questions:

  • What does the client intend to buy?
  • When will the opportunity arise? 

These tenders are useful for both parties, particularly in scenarios when the start of the project has been set at a future date. Revealing the project’s requirements beforehand enables suppliers to align resources, skills, and strategies with these, which, in theory, should result in a more substantial and qualified list of potential service providers. 

This is also valuable for SMEs, since early transparency lowers the barriers for newer or smaller entrants, which provides for a more diverse supplier base, but forecasted tenders also have many more benefits for suppliers:

  • Organizations have time to conduct capability assessments, address any gaps, and allocate budgets for upcoming bids.
  • Long-lead timelines allow for phased investments in R&D, workforce training, or the formation of partnerships rather than rushed, high-stake commitments.
  • Internal teams (e.g., legal, finance, operations) can synchronize efforts to meet the forecasted requirements.
  • Businesses can weigh the forecasted opportunity against other priorities, focusing resources on high-value, high-fit prospects.

Types of forecasting methods

Procurement forecasts can be categorized into three main approaches, each with distinct applications:

Forecasted vs. open tender: different or complementary?

Understanding the methodology behind a forecast helps suppliers to assess its feasibility. For instance, quantitative forecasts may struggle to account for sudden regulatory shifts, while those that are qualitative may lack granularity. Organizations must therefore gain detailed foresight that can then be leveraged strategically. 

Here’s how we recommend doing so:

  • Establish processes to track and analyze forecasts from relevant agencies, prioritizing those aligned with core competencies.
  • Compare the forecasted requirements with current capabilities to identify gaps in expertise, certifications, or partnerships.
  • Use the forecast period to seek clarification, understand the evaluation criteria, and build relationships with procurement teams.
  • Regularly reassess forecasts for updates or cancellations, maintaining flexibility to reallocate resources as needed.

Open tenders

Open tendering is a procurement method where publicly advertised contracting opportunities invite eligible suppliers to bid. The defining characteristics reveal the underlying logic: 

  • No pre-qualification beyond basic eligibility requirements.
  • Evaluation criteria and timelines are fixed and transparent.
  • Awards typically go to the bidder offering the ‘most economically advantageous tender’ (MEAT), balancing cost and value. 

This approach isn’t just about fairness, it addresses two aspects: 

  • Removing discretion from buyer-supplier matching reduces the risk of favoritism.
  • Open competition should drive prices down and innovation up via pure market forces.

However, like all systems designed to achieve equity, trade-offs are created. The same transparency that prevents backroom deals also crowds the field with competitors. The same rules that ensure fairness can stifle the flexibility of more complex projects.

The open tender process

The open tender process follows a rigid sequence, which typically proceeds thus:

  • The tender is advertised through official channels (e.g., government portals, trade publications).
  • Suppliers develop proposals within fixed deadlines, adhering to strict documentation requirements.
  • Submissions are scored against the pre-published criteria, often by panels to minimize individual bias.
  • The winner is announced, with debriefs provided to unsuccessful bidders. 

Why is this structure important?

  • Suppliers know the rules upfront, thereby reducing any ambiguity.
  • It works well for commoditized goods/services with clear specifications (e.g., office supplies, road construction).
  • It creates an audit trail for legal challenges should any arise. 

Who wins, who loses

Open tenders reward specific organizational traits:

  • Operational efficiency: The ability to produce compliant bids quickly.
  • Cost leadership: Margins are sufficiently slim to undercut competitors.
  • Risk tolerance: Willingness to absorb the high cost of frequent bidding with uncertain returns.

This creates inherent tensions:

  • Truly innovative solutions often struggle to fit predefined technical specifications.
  • Larger businesses tend to dominate due to their resource advantage, while smaller players niche into overlooked opportunities.
  • The most economically advantageous tender framework aims to balance both, but in practice, evaluators often prioritize price due to audit pressures.

Strategic playbook for businesses

To thrive in the open tender environment, organizations need more than good products, they need process discipline: 

  • Develop a Bid/No-Bid Framework: Score opportunities against strategic fit, win probability, and resource costs.
  • Master compliance engineering: Create templates for recurring documentation (e.g., ISO certifications, financial statements).
  • Use AI tools to cross-check tender requirements against submissions.
  • Price strategically, not reactively, by building cost models that account for post-award risks (e.g., inflation escalators, change orders). The winning bid will not be the cheapest; it will be the one that best aligns price with the priorities of the evaluator.
  • Leverage losses, systematically analyze debriefs to identify any scoring gaps.
  • Track patterns: Are you consistently losing on technical scores? Pricing? Sustainability criteria? 

Conclusion

The differences between forecasted and open tenders reflect the need for adaptability in modern procurement, which involves strategic planning, immediate competition, relationship building, and also transactional efficiency.

For sophisticated procurement professionals, the key isn't choosing between these approaches, it's orchestrating them within a coherent market strategy.

Forecasted tenders offer the luxury of preparation but demand disciplined pipeline management and resource allocation. Open tenders provide immediate opportunities but require operational excellence and risk tolerance.

The most successful organizations treat these as complementary tools by using forecasts to build capability and relationships, then leveraging that foundation to compete more effectively in open competitions.

This dual approach can transform procurement from reactive bidding into proactive market positioning - a crucial distinction in increasingly competitive government contracting landscapes.