www.bidstats.uk

                                                                   

Platform URL: https://bidstats.uk/

The COCOO-Bidstats Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Procurement Analytics and Competitor Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating Bidstats.uk, a specialized UK public procurement database. This is not merely a tender search engine; it is a high-powered analytics platform. We will weaponize Bidstats to move beyond finding individual opportunities and instead conduct deep, data-driven Competitor Analysis, reverse-engineer market dynamics, identify systemic procurement flaws to fuel our USP campaigns, and uncover the evidence needed to Challenge Discretion and disqualify rivals. This platform is a primary engine for our Benchmarking, Porter analysis, and tactical FOC DAM strategies.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of Bidstats is governed by the most analytical principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just finding contracts; we are mapping the flow of public money to find the points of maximum leverage.

  • Analytics as a Weapon: The core principle is that aggregated procurement data reveals patterns that single notices obscure. We will use Bidstats’ analytical capabilities to identify who is winning, where they are winning, and how much they are winning. This data-driven approach is the foundation of our Benchmarking and Competitor Analysis strategies. 1
  • Reverse-Engineering Success: By analyzing the full history of Contract Award Notices for a specific service or buyer, we can reverse-engineer the characteristics of a winning bid. We can determine average winning contract values, identify the most successful suppliers in a niche, and understand a buyer’s preferences, giving us a decisive edge in future tenders.
  • The “Systemic Inefficiency” USP: The mind maps mandate the use of USPs to solve problems public bodies don’t know they have. 1 We will use Bidstats to analyze a department’s spending over time. If we can prove through their own award data that they are consistently overpaying for a service compared to other departments, or awarding contracts inefficiently, we have the irrefutable evidence for a USP proposing a new, cost-saving procurement strategy managed by COCOO.
  • The FOC DAM Intelligence Layer: When a major prime contractor like Carillion or Interserve collapses, Bidstats provides a historical record of every contract they won. 1 This allows us to map their commitments and, by extension, identify the network of subcontractors and suppliers who are now creditors and potential claimants for a FOC DAM action. 1

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of Bidstats’ search interface is critical. Its strength lies in its focus on awarded contracts and the ability to search and analyze this historical data.

  • Official Search Rules & Functionality: The platform is designed for deep analysis of procurement data. Based on its functionality and standard search conventions, the rules for interrogation are as follows:
Feature / Filter Function & Strategic Importance
Keywords A free-text search across notice titles and descriptions. Supports standard operators. We will use "exact phrase" for specific services and + or AND to combine concepts (e.g., "facilities management" + school).
Buyer Allows filtering by the name of the public sector buying organisation (e.g., NHS England, Ministry of Defence). This is our primary tool for analyzing a specific client’s spending patterns.
Supplier Allows filtering by the name of the company that won the contract. This is our primary weapon for Competitor Analysis.
Notice Type A critical filter to isolate specific stages of the procurement cycle. We will focus heavily on Contract Award Notice for analysis, but also monitor Tender for live opportunities and Prior Information Notice for early warnings.
CPV Codes Allows for precise sectoral analysis using the Common Procurement Vocabulary. We will use this to define a market (e.g., all contracts under the code for ‘IT services: consulting, software development, Internet and support’ – 72000000).
Value Allows filtering by contract value range. Essential for focusing on opportunities of a relevant scale and for analyzing spending brackets.
Date Range Allows filtering by publication date. Essential for trend analysis, such as tracking a competitor’s win rate over the last 24 months.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate Bidstats to find the data that proves our arguments and exposes our competitors’ strategies.

  • For Competitor Analysis & Benchmarking:

    • “Generate a list of all contracts awarded to [e.g., Mitie Group PLC] by any UK Central Government body in the last 3 years. What is the total value and what are their top 5 government clients by spend?”
    • “Who are the top 3 most successful suppliers for contracts with the CPV code for ‘architectural services’ (71200000) awarded by London-based local authorities?”
    • “Our client is bidding for a contract with the Department for Education. Who won the last three contracts of a similar nature, and what was the winning bid value for each? This provides a direct Benchmark for our pricing strategy.” 1

  • For USP Origination & Systemic Failure:

    • “Analyze all contracts awarded by the Environment Agency for ‘environmental monitoring services’ over the past 5 years. Is there a trend of increasing contract values without a corresponding increase in stated outcomes? This could be the basis for a USP on efficiency.”
    • “Which NHS Trusts are spending the most on temporary clinical staffing? A high, fragmented spend across multiple small contracts indicates a systemic problem that a COCOO-managed master vendor framework could solve.”

  • For FOC DAM & Challenge Discretion:

    • “A contract was awarded to [Competitor X] under a direct award procedure. Find the Contract Award Notice. Does the justification align with the rules? Cross-reference this with other awards to the same supplier. Is there a pattern of non-competitive awards that suggests bias and could be grounds to Challenge Discretion?” 1

4. The COCOO-Bidstats Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using Bidstats to generate powerful, data-driven intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Competitor Autopsy” Engine

  • Objective: To create a comprehensive, data-driven dossier on any competitor’s public sector business, identifying their strengths, weaknesses, and key relationships.
  • Execution:
    1. Target the Supplier: In the Bidstats search, enter the competitor’s name (e.g., Sopra Steria) in the Supplier field.
    2. Set Timeframe: Set the Date Range for the last 36 months to get a current picture of their activities.
    3. Analyze the Portfolio: Run the search and analyze the results.
      • Total Value & Volume: What is the total value and number of contracts won?
      • Key Clients: Which Buyers appear most frequently? These are their core government relationships.
      • Core Services: Which CPV Codes are most common? This defines their public sector focus.
      • Win Rate (Proxy): Compare the number of their Tender notices versus their Contract Award Notices to get a rough proxy for their bid-to-win ratio.
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces a “Competitor Public Sector Dossier” that is invaluable for strategic planning. It tells us which clients to target to take market share, which services they are strongest in, and provides a hard data Benchmark for COCOO’s own performance.

Playbook B: The “Buyer Behavior” Analysis (USP Generator)

  • Objective: To analyze a public body’s procurement history to identify inefficiencies and create a data-driven USP.
  • Execution:
    1. Target the Buyer: In the search, enter the name of a specific public body (e.g., Transport for London) in the Buyer field.
    2. Define the Service: Use Keywords and CPV Codes to focus on a specific service area (e.g., "market research" or "legal services").
    3. Analyze Award Patterns: Review all Contract Award Notices for that service over the last 3-5 years. Look for patterns:
      • Fragmentation: Are they awarding many small contracts for the same service?
      • Incumbent Bias: Is the same supplier winning repeatedly without strong competition?
      • Value Creep: Are the contract values for the same service increasing year-on-year above inflation?
    4. Deploy the USP: Use this data to build a USP. “Our analysis of your own published award data shows a pattern of fragmented spending on legal services. COCOO proposes the creation of a managed legal services framework that would consolidate this spend, leverage buying power to reduce costs by an estimated 15%, and provide enhanced strategic oversight.”
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook turns public data into a powerful sales tool. It allows COCOO to approach potential clients with irrefutable evidence of a problem and a ready-made solution, creating high-value opportunities.

Playbook C: The “Market Share” Calculator

  • Objective: To calculate a defensible estimate of a company’s market share within a specific public sector niche.
  • Execution:
    1. Define the Total Market: First, define the total addressable market. Use the search filters to select a specific CPV Code, Location (e.g., “UK – North West”), and Date Range (e.g., “last 12 months”). Calculate the total value of all Contract Award Notices that match. This is the Total Market Value.
    2. Calculate Competitor’s Share: Now, add a Supplier filter for your target competitor (e.g., Jacobs Engineering Group). Run the search again with the same filters. Calculate the total value of contracts awarded to them.
    3. Determine Market Share: Divide the competitor’s total contract value by the Total Market Value to get their estimated market share for that specific niche.
  • Strategic Outcome: This provides COCOO with hard, quantitative data for Benchmarking and Competitor Analysis. In a MATOIPO analysis, being able to state that the merged entity will control “45% of the public sector engineering consultancy market in the North West” is a far more powerful argument to the CMA than a vague assertion of dominance.

Leave a Reply