High-scorer or acrobat?
Does this mean the winning bidders have the highest scores on all criteria, the best solution in every conceivable way, and also the best price? By no means. But they probably did offer the best balance according to a specific ranking system.
Bottom line is that nobody can be the best at everything. If that really were the case, clearly there wouldn’t be any competition left.
This may look like a bit of a strange analogy but it will help clarify the flaw in the concept of current e-mobility tendering. Imagine you want to build a house. You are certainly not a construction professional, you just want a place to live in and sleep. So you ask the experts for an offer. You receive tender proposals from an electrician, a gardener, and a bricklayer.
Here’s the catch. Whoever wins gets to do everything from building your house, designing your interiors, planting your garden, to wiring your house. You read that right. Now let’s suppose building the actual house is the most important feature: the bricklayer wins on points.
...But what about the garden? Are you still happy about the house wiring? Will it be as good and safe as the one done by the electrician?
So why is this an all-or-nothing tendering package? If you follow the premise that you can’t be the best at everything, do you automatically have to accept the good and the bad, as if that were the only possible way?
Since tendering is a fixed-term process, after 4 years you go through the same process all over again. You know the bricklayer is not as good at planting as the gardener, or as good at wiring as the electrician. But because he already built your current house, he’ll be the only one in this new tender that doesn’t require you to tear down your house and start from scratch. It’s a no-brainer - he’s unbeatable on price.
The tendering process doesn’t give you the best solution for all aspects, and re-tendering will never fix that.