Getting Feedback After Winning or Losing a South African Government Tender

Post-tender feedback is one of the most underutilised tools for improving bid performance in South African government procurement. Under the Preferential Procurement Regulations, unsuccessful bidders have a legal right to request written reasons for not being selected. This feedback, properly interpreted, can reveal exactly where your bid lost points, how your price compared to the winning bid, and what you need to improve in future submissions. Even winning bidders can learn from the debriefing process.

Your Legal Right to Post-Tender Feedback

Regulation 13 of the 2017 Preferential Procurement Regulations provides that where a bid has not been successful, the bidder is entitled to reasons in writing upon written request. This right is also supported by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), which requires organs of state to provide written reasons for administrative decisions that affect a person's rights upon request within 90 days of becoming aware of the decision. The practical implication is that you should submit your written request for feedback promptly after receiving notification that your bid was unsuccessful — delays in requesting may complicate the process.

The written response from the procuring institution should include the score your bid received in each evaluation category, the score of the winning bidder in each category, the reasons why your bid did not meet any mandatory compliance requirements (if applicable), and the ranking of all bids that were evaluated. Some departments provide this information voluntarily in the award notice; others require a formal written request addressed to the accounting officer or supply chain management director. Retaining copies of your bid submission and all correspondence is essential in case of a formal review or legal challenge.

Written feedback is your right under PPPFA Regulations and PAJA
Submit a written request for reasons promptly after the unsuccessful notification
Request your score per evaluation category and the winning bidder's score
The response should include ranking of all evaluated bids
Retain all bid documents and correspondence for potential review proceedings

How to Interpret and Use Feedback Constructively

When you receive your scores, the first step is to identify where the largest gaps between your score and the winning score occurred. If your functionality score was below the minimum threshold, the feedback will reveal which sub-criteria your technical proposal failed to adequately address. If your functionality score was strong but your overall score was lower than the winner's, the gap may be purely in price or B-BBEE preference points. Each scenario requires a different strategic response: a functionality gap demands better technical proposal writing, while a price gap requires cost model refinement, and a B-BBEE gap points to transformation strategy work.

Many businesses use post-tender feedback to build a continuous improvement register — a record of every bid submitted, the scores received, the identified gaps, and the improvements made before the next bid. This systematic approach has been shown to significantly improve win rates over time. It also helps bid managers prioritise their efforts: a company that consistently scores well on technical merit but loses on price should focus on pricing intelligence and cost reduction, while a company with strong pricing but weak technical scores should invest in proposal writing capability and team CVs.

Identify which evaluation categories show the largest score gaps
Below-threshold functionality means your technical proposal needs structural improvement
Price gaps require cost model refinement and competitive pricing intelligence
B-BBEE gaps indicate a need for transformation strategy and partner selection work
Maintain a continuous improvement register tracking all bids and feedback received

Escalation Options When Feedback Reveals Irregularities

If the feedback you receive suggests that the evaluation was conducted irregularly — for example, if your bid was disqualified for a reason not stated in the bid specification, if the scores awarded do not align with the stated criteria, or if there is evidence that the award was made to a lower-scoring bidder — you have several escalation options. The first step is usually to request a formal meeting with the accounting officer of the procuring institution to raise your concerns. This internal route is fastest and least adversarial.

If the internal escalation does not resolve the matter, you can lodge a complaint with National Treasury, approach the Office of the Auditor-General if you believe irregular expenditure has occurred, or file a complaint with the Public Protector under the Public Protector Act. For significant contracts where legal rights are at stake, a review application to the High Court under PAJA or the Constitutional right to just administrative action is available. Legal challenges must typically be brought within 180 days of the decision. Engage an attorney experienced in government procurement law before initiating court proceedings.

First escalation: formal meeting with the accounting officer of the institution
Second escalation: complaint to National Treasury or the Auditor-General
Public Protector complaint for systemic maladministration or corruption
High Court review under PAJA must be filed within 180 days of the decision
Engage a procurement law attorney before initiating legal proceedings

Need Help Winning This Tender?

Our experts at TenderWin specialise in tender preparation, BBBEE compliance, and bid strategy. Get a free consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I formally request post-tender feedback?

Submit a written request addressed to the accounting officer or the head of supply chain management of the relevant institution. Address your request to the specific tender number, state that you are invoking your right under the PPPFA Regulations and PAJA, and specifically request your scores per evaluation category, the winning bidder's scores, and the full ranking of evaluated bids. Send the request by email and follow up by registered letter for formal record purposes. Some institutions have a standard feedback request form — check their website or contact their supply chain unit.

Within what timeframe must the procuring institution respond to a feedback request?

Under PAJA, an organ of state must provide written reasons for an administrative decision within 90 days of receiving a written request. Under the PPPFA Regulations, no specific timeframe is prescribed for bid feedback beyond the general PAJA requirement. In practice, many departments aim to provide feedback within 30 working days. If you do not receive a response within the 90-day PAJA period, this in itself may constitute an administrative failure that can be escalated to the Public Protector.

Can I ask for feedback before the award is formally announced?

Typically, no. Procuring institutions generally do not provide bid evaluation details before the award process is complete, as premature disclosure could compromise the integrity of the procurement. Once the award has been formally published or notified to all bidders, the right to request written reasons arises. Some institutions publish a summary of all bid prices and scores on the eTender portal as part of the award notice, which can serve as informal feedback.

What should I do if the feedback suggests my B-BBEE certificate was not accepted?

If the procuring institution did not accept your B-BBEE certificate, first verify why: common reasons include an expired certificate, a certificate not issued by a SANAS-accredited agency, an EME or QSE affidavit that was not signed by a commissioner of oaths, or a certificate for a company that appears different from the registered bid entity. Address the specific deficiency identified, obtain a valid replacement certificate, and update your CSD profile. If you believe your certificate was incorrectly rejected, include this in your formal feedback request and escalation if necessary.

Is it possible to win a tender review or appeal in South Africa?

Yes. There are documented cases where courts have set aside tender awards and ordered re-evaluation or re-advertisement. Successful reviews typically involve clear procedural irregularities such as evaluation against unpublished criteria, failure to follow the prescribed scoring methodology, or award to a bidder who failed the compliance check. Reviews based purely on disagreement with how discretionary scores were allocated are much harder to win. Courts generally defer to the expertise of evaluation committees on technical scoring unless there is evidence of irrationality or bad faith.

Can I use tender feedback to improve my bid for the same contract if it is re-advertised?

Yes, absolutely. If a tender is cancelled and re-advertised, you are free to submit a new bid, and the feedback from the previous round is extremely valuable for improving your second submission. However, be aware that if the re-advertisement has materially changed the scope or specifications, your previous technical approach may need significant revision. Some procuring institutions re-advertise with modified specifications specifically to address issues identified in the first round, so read the new bid documents carefully before assuming the previous response can be reused.

Related Guides

Get Daily Tender Alerts

Receive daily alerts for government tenders matching your business profile. Never miss a tender opportunity again.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. By subscribing you agree to our Privacy Policy.