How do the scenarios compare?
| Annual tenders | Hours at 40h each | Shape of the work |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 200 | Absorbable by a lead plus borrowed specialists, if never concurrent |
| 15 | 600 | Concurrency bites: quarters with three live pursuits need a dedicated coordinator |
| 40 | 1,600 | A full-time function, or, more likely, a qualification failure to fix first |
Figures illustrative; 40 hours is the calculator floor, real packs vary, and these are scenarios, not benchmarks for any firm size. The per-tender budgets come from the response-time budget; the consultancy utilisation cost from the utilisation trap.
Where are the bottlenecks?
Rarely the writers. Usually the reviewers: the partner who signs, the specialist who prices, the delivery lead whose evenings are finite, compounded by leave, where a two-week absence inside a four-week tender removes half the review capacity. Map each role’s concurrent load across live pursuits before concluding a new hire fixes anything: most “understaffed” bid teams are overcommitted bid teams, and the cheaper cure is fewer concurrent pursuits through a working gate.
What does this mean for the bid/no-bid call?
Every hire lowers the bar the gate must clear to justify itself; new capacity seeks work, including poor-fit work. Size the team to qualified volume, not to inbound volume; then let the gate protect the sizing. Headcount follows strategy, never precedes it.