Which assumptions need fresh evidence?
| Assumption from home | Fresh evidence needed | Source | Cost / capacity effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| We know the rules | Regime map for the new market | NZ pillar, UK pillar, three-way comparison | Reading weeks, not hours, plus counsel where it matters |
| Our referees prove us | Locally legible references | First small wins, partnerships, or transferable multinational proof | Early bids score lower until the record exists |
| We can deliver there | Presence, mobilisation, local supply chain | Site visits, partner diligence, mobilisation quotes | Travel, setup, and management overhead before revenue |
| Our costs transfer | Local cost base: labour, compliance, insurance, tax | Brokers, accountants, local hires | Rebuilt pricing from zero; home rates mislead |
| We know the buyers | Relationship and reputation from nothing | Panels, small lots, visible delivery, time | Longest payback of all; budget years, not tenders |
Jurisdiction claims in the regime row defer to the verified pillars; this page owns the commercial entry decision, not the rules. The three-axis test still frames it: strategy, capacity, risk.
A labelled hypothetical
Hypothetical, invented to show the worksheet, not a client case and with no win probabilities attached. An Australian professional-services firm eyes its first New Zealand tender: a mid-value departmental RFP in its discipline. Regime reading: two weeks of partner time against the NZ pillar. Referees: strong Australian proof, zero NZ proof, scored honestly at a discount. Presence: fly-in delivery with a local partner to be found and diligenced. Cost base: rebuilt with NZ labour and compliance inputs. Verdict: a review, not a bid; proceed only with a partner signed and the learning priced as market entry, not as pursuit.
What does this mean for the bid/no-bid call?
Entry bids are investments wearing tender numbers: gate them as investments, with entry cost, payback horizon, and kill criteria agreed before lodgement. A single tender that cannot carry the entry cost is a no, however attractive the scope. The firm enters markets; tenders merely timestamp the decision.