What must the matrix cover?
| Commitment | Owner | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility and registration | Named party per the pack’s JV provisions | JV agreement or consortium deed status at lodgement date |
| Technical evidence per discipline | Party per discipline split | Projects and referees from the owning party, consented |
| Price and margin | Joint: signed by both | Agreed cost base with interface costs included, not assumed away |
| Liability and security | Joint and several unless the pack allows otherwise | Guarantees, insurance, and parent support evidenced per party |
| Decision rights | Named per decision class: bid, price, risk positions, withdrawal | Written authority: verbal alignment expires under pressure |
Where do JV bids fail?
Interface gaps: scope between the parties that belongs to neither (integration, testing, commissioning, defects across the boundary). Price gaps: each party’s margin stacked without a joint position the market will bear. Decision gaps: withdrawal rights unagreed until one party wants out mid-pursuit. And partner failure: the counterparty whose capacity was assumed, never diligenced; read approval and flow-down mechanics the way subcontracting restrictions describes, applied to equals.
Governing law and the named arrangement’s terms go to counsel with the matrix where liability turns; this page maps the reading, not the legal consequences.
What does this mean for the bid/no-bid call?
Gate the vehicle, not just the tender: partner diligence, interface ownership, joint price viability, and withdrawal mechanics, each evidenced before pursuit spend. Record it on the decision record with both parties’ veto holders named. A JV bid without a joint gate is two zombies holding hands.