Reasons for project failure: Vague tender scope
A poorly defined tender scope can stop great intentions of a sound project, in its tracks.
Furthermore, it can cause havoc between customers and suppliers if the exact requirements are not clear or unambiguous.
10 hard lessons from vague tender scope that cause project failure:
- Unclear or ambiguous requirements
When tender documents lack specificity, vendors are forced to make assumptions. This leads to mismatched expectations, costly change requests, scope creep, and project delays. Vague requirements fail to define success, which makes performance measurement and accountability nearly impossible. Ultimately, unclear scope leads to deliverables that don't meet business needs or user expectations.
- Lack of executive sponsorship
Without visible support from senior leadership, the tender process lacks direction, authority, and legitimacy. This can result in rushed decisions, under-scoped requirements, and poor alignment with enterprise priorities. Moreover, vendors may lose confidence in the seriousness or long-term commitment to the project, leading to low-quality bids or inflated pricing to cover perceived risk.
- Poor alignment with strategic goals
Tenders that fail to connect to clear business or strategic objectives often result in solutions that lack impact, are deprioritized, or never fully adopted. If the project doesn’t support measurable goals—like cost reduction, regulatory compliance, or customer satisfaction—it is unlikely to be successfully implemented or sustained beyond go-live.
- Poor benefits and value proposition
Tenders that focus only on technical specifications without highlighting expected business outcomes will struggle to gain internal buy-in and attract quality bids. Vendors need to understand the "why" behind the scope to propose innovative, cost-effective solutions. Internally, stakeholders need to see clear value to prioritize the project and commit resources.
- Lack of key stakeholder engagement
When frontline users, IT, procurement, and compliance teams are excluded from shaping the tender, critical insights are missed. This results in incomplete or unrealistic requirements, lack of ownership during implementation, and post-award resistance. Early engagement ensures the scope reflects real needs, avoids rework, and builds internal alignment.
- Inexperienced tender writer
Tenders written without sufficient domain knowledge, commercial insight, or project delivery experience tend to miss the mark. Inexperienced writers may overuse boilerplate content, omit critical details, or use terminology that misguides vendors. This increases ambiguity and undermines the project’s credibility and competitiveness in the market.
- Vague or overly technical language
Tenders that use jargon, unclear definitions, or overly technical terms without business context cause confusion and misinterpretation. Vendors may misquote, lowball, or build in excessive contingencies. Internally, stakeholders may struggle to validate requirements or assess proposals. Clear, plain language ensures accurate bids and cross-functional understanding.
- No clear governance and implementation plan
When tenders do not outline how the project will be governed—who owns it, who approves changes, and how success will be monitored—implementation risks skyrocket. Ambiguity in governance leads to finger-pointing, delays, and budget overruns. A clear post-award plan builds vendor confidence and ensures smoother delivery and accountability.
- Lack of scenario planning
Tenders that assume a single outcome and don’t plan for different scenarios—such as changes in budget, timelines, or requirements—fail to manage risk effectively. A lack of “what if” thinking limits flexibility and responsiveness, forcing rushed decisions when things go wrong. Robust tenders’ model contingency planning and decision pathways.
- Weak financial analysis and justification
If the tender does not present a well-considered budget, cost-benefit rationale, or funding plan, it’s hard to evaluate feasibility or value. Vendors may overprice to cover uncertainty or underprice to win—leading to quality compromises later. Internally, finance teams may block approval or cut scope due to unclear ROI or payback metrics.
