How do the procedures compare?
| Question | Open procedure | Competitive flexible procedure |
|---|---|---|
| Stages | One: submit the full tender | Buyer-designed: shortlisting, dialogue, negotiation rounds as the notice sets |
| Negotiation | None on the tender as submitted | As the notice permits; read the limits, not the hope |
| Evidence timing | Everything with the tender | Staged: participation, then tender, then final, per the notice timetable |
| Pursuit commitment | One full response, one cost | Staged spend with stop points; budget each stage, set stop conditions |
Confirm the comparison against the competitive-tendering-procedures guidance and the notice in hand; buyers design flexible procedures differently, and the notice is the specification. Australian RFx labels and NZ RFx types are cousins, not equivalents: RFT vs RFP vs RFQ vs EOI vs ITT and RFP, RFT, ROI, RFQ and RFI: useful context, never authority for a UK pack.
What does each stage demand?
Participation evidence first: core supplier information and conditions of participation, timed to the buyer’s request: what to prove and when. Then the tender itself against the award criteria (MAT scoring, not supplier selection), which is why the two must never be confused. Dialogue and negotiation stages demand senior people in the room, priced positions that can move without breaking margin, and walk-away points set before the meeting; multi-stage budgeting works the way staged investment describes, whatever the regime.
What does this mean for the bid/no-bid call?
Gate each stage as its own call with its own hours: a flexible procedure survived to dialogue is not committed to final tender. Set stop conditions before stage one (the facts that would make the next stage a no) and re-run the gate when the buyer reshapes the requirement mid-dialogue. The regime context is what changed for suppliers.