The importance of SMEs’ network partners in consortium bidding for public sector tenders

Abstract

PurposeThe aim is to examine the importance small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) see in different network partners regarding successful tendering in public procurement, and whether this perception predicts the number of joint bids and wins.Design/methodology/approachThe data were collected by an electronic questionnaire which was sent to the registered users of the leading electronic platform for public procurement in Finland. The data were analysed with statistical methods.FindingsThe findings suggest that a favourable perception of the importance of horizontal networks in public procurement is associated with a larger number of joint bids and better success in joint bidding. However, the results do not establish a positive correlation between vertical networks and consortium bidding.Research limitations/implicationsThe data were collected from a single EU country. Since the criteria for bidding consortia may vary between countries, different results might have been achieved from other countries.Practical implicationsSMEs should be encouraged to form bidding consortia and acquire related experience. Policymakers should minimise barriers to consortium bidding, e.g. by offering more information. They should also assess the merits of joint bidding because they rarely encourage SMEs to bid as a consortium.Social implicationsConsortium bidding is a way of enhancing SMEs’ possibilities to participate in public tender contests, even in large contracts.Originality/valueWhile consortium bidding has been recognised to enhance SMEs’ possibilities of participating in public procurement, there is limited research into how SMEs’ network collaborations relate to bidding as a consortium.

Between friend and foe: drivers and patterns of dyadic relationship framing in policy network

“…Cepiku, 2020), (2) how the network actors' resources and powers are distributed (e.g. Costumato, 2021;Reijonen et al, 2021), and (3) how the network actors interact and communicate with one another to address the belief accordance and power distribution (e.g. Cristofoli et al, 2020;Maurya and Srivastava, 2020).…”

“…At the most basic level, tangible and intangible resource dependence can be translated into policy influence (the extent to which an actor is known to be important or performing well), which conditions the policy actors' choices and strategic behaviors (DeSarbo et al, 2006;Ingold and Leifeld, 2016). Thus, assuming that power sharing among policy network actors is one of the critical drivers of relationship (Costumato, 2021;Reijonen et al, 2021), this study examines the degree of power distribution among policy actors.…”

“…, 2006; Ingold and Leifeld, 2016). Thus, assuming that power sharing among policy network actors is one of the critical drivers of relationship (Costumato, 2021; Reijonen et al. , 2021), this study examines the degree of power distribution among policy actors.…”

The upcoming rise of SMEs in cross-border public procurement: is it a matter of networking capabilities?

“…Saastamoinen et al, 2018), relational and procedural (e.g. Flynn and Davis, 2017b;Reijonen et al, 2022) and learning (e.g. Calderón et al, 2018) capabilities.…”

“…There is also a gap in the literature relating to the performance of SMEs in public contracts in general (Tammi et al, 2016), and although there has been a recent proliferation of very interesting research focusing on SME participation in national or local contracts (e.g. Flynn 2017;Flynn and Davis, 2016;2017a, b;Saastamoinen et al, 2017;Reijonen et al, 2022;Namagembe et al, 2021), research on the participation of SMEs in international public procurement is virtually non-existent.…”