Four small sailing boats cross open aubergine water, a visual reflection on giving different businesses room to compete.
Clear invitations, proportionate requirements and workable contracts can help capable small businesses reach opportunities that would otherwise pass them by.
By Arbab Naseebullah Kasi, Chief Executive Officer - CEO, Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc.
The owner of a small printing business opens an invitation to supply a community programme. The work looks familiar: learning materials, event signs and a short annual report. Her team has produced all three for other customers.
Then she reads the conditions. The contract also includes a service she does not provide. The response asks for a long account of her company's history but says little about delivery dates. She cannot tell how the buyer will compare quality with price. Completing the application would take time she had planned to spend on paid work.
She closes the document without applying.
This is an imagined example, not a report about a particular business. It illustrates a question worth asking whenever an organisation says it wants more small suppliers: what does the opportunity look like from the other side?
A buyer may see one application among many. A small business owner has to decide whether the chance justifies the effort, whether the terms are manageable and whether the work fits the business. Those decisions begin well before anyone evaluates a bid.
Charities, schools, companies and public bodies all purchase things. Their rules differ, sometimes substantially. Yet each can examine how its purchasing process affects the businesses able to take part. The practical principles below draw on public and international procurement guidance. Applying them requires attention to the buyer's own law, funding conditions and purchasing policy.
Begin with the work you actually need
Our imagined buyer needs printed materials that arrive in usable condition before specific events. That sounds simple until someone has to define it.
Who supplies the finished design? How many changes can be expected? Is delivery needed at one address or several? Which items must be ready first? What happens if the programme changes its date?
These details shape the supplier's estimate. When they are missing, one bidder may assume a straightforward job while another allows for repeated revisions and several journeys. Comparing the two prices then becomes less informative than it appears.
A useful invitation helps suppliers picture the work. It describes the result, the quantities or expected range, the timetable, the relevant standards and the responsibilities on each side. Where something is uncertain, it explains how that uncertainty will be handled.
It is also worth asking what the buyer knows before writing the final specification. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development describes early market engagement as structured consultation before procurement, used to understand market capacity and improve the approach. Its guidance also warns against favouring particular suppliers or giving them an unfair advantage. Read the EBRD's guidance on early market engagement.
For a smaller organisation, a proportionate version might involve learning about available printing methods and realistic production times before inviting offers. Any engagement must follow the applicable rules, with consistent information and appropriate records. Asking the market a question should not quietly become choosing the winner.
Look carefully at the size of the package
The printing business in our example may be capable of producing every printed item. It may still be unable to bid if the buyer has combined printing with website maintenance and event photography.
There could be a sound reason to appoint one supplier for the whole package. There could also be a practical way to purchase distinct services separately. The decision deserves more thought than copying the previous contract.
The OECD's study of small and medium-sized enterprises in public procurement explains that dividing contracts into lots can align opportunities with the scale and specialisation of smaller firms. It also identifies trade-offs, including possible losses of efficiency, and cautions against artificial splitting to evade procurement rules. Read the OECD's discussion of contract size and lots.
For our imagined programme, the buyer could examine whether printing is a distinct, manageable responsibility. Who would coordinate it with design? Would separate suppliers create avoidable delays? Could the organisation manage the additional relationships properly?
Smaller packages need clear boundaries. If two suppliers are both told that the other one is responsible for preparing the final files, the invitation has created a future argument.
The useful decision is the one that fits delivery, competition and accountability together. It should be made transparently, within the rules, before suppliers invest in their responses.
Ask for evidence that belongs to this job
A buyer needs confidence that a supplier can deliver. Relevant experience, financial capacity, safety requirements and technical ability can all matter. The challenge is to explain what each requirement is protecting.
In our printing example, a suitable sample may reveal more about the proposed finish than several pages of promotional language. A production schedule may help the buyer judge delivery. A required licence or insurance arrangement may be essential for a particular activity. The evidence should follow the actual risk.
The UK Cabinet Office's guidance under the Procurement Act 2023 says conditions of participation must be proportionate to a contract's nature, complexity and cost. It distinguishes the supplier's capacity from the criteria used to assess its offer. These are requirements within that legal framework, not a universal rulebook for every organisation. Read the Cabinet Office guidance on conditions of participation.
A practical review question for any buyer is: if we removed this question, what important uncertainty would remain?
Sometimes the answer will justify keeping it. Sometimes the team will discover that nobody uses the answer. An old template can contain requirements added for a different service, a larger purchase or a risk that is absent from the current work.
Required safeguards must remain. But every unnecessary demand occupies somebody's working time. A short, relevant application gives the buyer a better chance to examine the evidence that matters.
Explain how the decision will be made
Imagine asking the printer to propose an environmentally preferable option, then choosing purely on the lowest initial price without having explained that approach. Or requesting a detailed service plan when nobody intends to assess it.
Suppliers deserve to understand what the buyer values and how they can demonstrate it.
The World Bank's guidance on rated criteria says bidding documents should identify the required evidence, evaluation method and corresponding weights. It also recommends focusing criteria on factors that meaningfully distinguish offers. The guidance concerns World Bank-financed procurement, but the underlying question is useful more widely: can a supplier see how its response will be judged? Read the World Bank's guidance on rated criteria.
For the imagined printing job, the buyer might care about legibility, production quality, delivery reliability and cost. Any assessment approach should be set out in advance and applied consistently, in accordance with the governing rules.
A familiar company should still have to show that its offer meets the requirements. A newcomer should be able to understand what evidence would make its offer credible. A polished presentation should receive only the credit that the published criteria justify.
Evaluators also need to record their reasons. If a decision cannot be explained without introducing a new consideration after the bids arrive, the process needs attention.
Give people a realistic chance to respond
The invitation may be clear and still arrive too late for a small team to prepare a useful offer.
Consider what the response actually requires. A straightforward quotation differs from a proposal involving samples, site visits or specialist partners. Someone needs to arrange those things while continuing to serve existing customers.
The United Nations Development Programme describes different purchasing methods and response periods according to the nature and complexity of the requirement. Its published process offers a concrete example of treating preparation time as part of procurement design. Its thresholds and timeframes are specific to UNDP and should not be copied as universal deadlines. Read how UNDP buys goods and services.
Our imagined buyer could work backwards from the first event. Time is needed for responses, evaluation, any required approvals, contracting, production and delivery. Compressing the supplier's preparation time will not repair a timetable that was unrealistic from the beginning.
Questions deserve a clear route too. State where to send them, when answers can be expected and how clarifications will reach bidders fairly. Protect confidential information and follow the applicable procedure when issuing changes.
A clear answer to a question can help a business decide responsibly that this particular opportunity is unsuitable. That is useful information for both sides.
Make the contract workable after the award
Winning creates responsibilities. The supplier may need to order materials, reserve staff time and turn away other work.
Before bidding, our printer needs to understand when the buyer will supply approved files, how changes will be authorised, what counts as acceptance and when payment will be due. An attractive contract value does not resolve uncertainty about those arrangements.
The OECD's Recommendation on SME Financing recognises the importance of timely payment to small businesses. It calls for clear, appropriate payment terms that are respected in practice. Read the OECD recommendation, including its payment provisions.
In the imagined programme, finance and delivery staff should agree on the invoicing process before the invitation goes out. The supplier should not discover after delivery that a reference number was required but never issued.
This is also a reason to examine the buyer's own commitments. If staff must approve a proof, who will do that while the usual contact is away? If the programme changes a quantity, who can approve the revised cost? If there is a disagreement, where does it go?
A manageable contract gives both parties a clear way to do the ordinary work and address problems. It allows the supplier to plan with information rather than guesswork.
Keep learning from the businesses that did not bid
A buyer can receive few offers for many reasons. The work may be too specialised. The timing may be poor. Businesses may be busy. The package or conditions may also have discouraged otherwise capable suppliers.
An empty inbox alone cannot tell us which explanation is right.
After a procurement, and through an appropriate channel, the organisation can invite feedback on the process without asking firms to disclose competitors' information or coordinate future bids. It can review repeated questions, withdrawals, missing responses and the time spent resolving preventable confusion.
A business association may help the buyer understand whether its notices reach smaller firms. An unsuccessful bidder may identify a question that was difficult to interpret. Staff may notice that they requested the same document in several places.
Use those observations to improve the next invitation. Keep necessary controls, document changes and seek procurement or legal advice where a change could affect compliance or fairness.
The printer at the beginning of this story does not need a promised contract. She needs enough clarity to decide whether to compete, a reasonable way to demonstrate her capability and confidence that the stated process will be followed.
An organisation interested in local enterprise can start with a purchase it already expects to make. Read the invitation as a capable small business would read it. Follow the work from first notice to final payment.
Then ask a straightforward question: have we given the right suppliers a fair chance to show what they can do?
