By Ron Segura 

When we lose a janitorial contract, it is easy to assume that the deciding factor was simply price—that another bidder undercut us. However, in many cases, this assumption oversimplifies the reality of competitive bidding. 
 
The truth is that contracts are not always lost because someone “went low.” More often, they are won by companies that approach the opportunity differently—through more efficient methods, better cost control, and a deeper evaluation of the scope of work. 
 
If we want to improve our win rate, we must be willing to critically examine our own methods, assumptions, and processes. By doing so, we can identify areas where we may unintentionally put ourselves at a disadvantage—and ultimately strengthen our competitive position. 

Reason 1: Productivity Assumptions and Cost Structure 

One of the top reasons we believe we did not secure the contract may be related to productivity assumptions and overall cost structure. The awarded contractor may have based their proposal on a higher productivity rate than we did. This increased productivity could result from more advanced equipment, improved processes, or stronger training programs. 
 
In addition, the successful bidder may operate with lower overhead costs, allowing them to present a more competitive price while maintaining profitability. Strong cost control is a key factor in gaining a competitive edge. 
 
Another critical factor is how cleanable square footage was evaluated. During the site walk-through, the awarded contractor may have identified areas that should not have been included in the cleanable square footage. By refining these measurements, they likely reduced the total scope and improved their pricing position. 
 
In contrast, we may have accepted the cleanable square footage provided by the prospect without fully validating or challenging it. Accepting inflated numbers at face value naturally leads to higher costs. 

Reason 2: Inconsistent Scope Evaluation 

Another key factor may have been inconsistency in how we evaluated the scope of work. The awarded contractor may have taken a more analytical approach—carefully assessing each area to determine actual service needs. In contrast, we may have taken a more conservative approach by accepting the scope largely as presented. This can lead to overestimating labor, time, and resources. 
 
Without a repeatable method, estimators may apply different assumptions from bid to bid, resulting in inflated labor hours and higher costs. 
 
Refining scope is not about cutting corners—it is about accurately defining the work. 

Reason 3: Bad Workload Development 

An often-overlooked factor is who is responsible for developing the workload—sales or operations teams. This distinction can significantly impact competitiveness. 
 
When sales teams develop the workload, the approach may be more cautious, leading to higher labor allocations and built-in buffers. When operations teams are involved, the process is grounded in real-world execution and often identifies efficiencies. 
 
The most competitive organizations align sales and operations teams to ensure accuracy and efficiency. Without this collaboration, proposals can become overbuilt and uncompetitive. 

Conclusion 

Losing a contract presents an opportunity for reflection and improvement. The reality is that contracts are often won by companies that are more precise and efficient—not just cheaper. Our competitiveness is largely determined by our internal processes. The way we interpret scope, engineer workloads, and align sales with operations shapes the outcome of our bids. 
 
In Part II, we will focus on how we communicate, leverage technology, and deliver presentations that help us win more consistently. 

Ron Segura is President of Segura & Associates, a consulting firm that helps organizations become more efficient and communicate better. With decades of experience in business leadership and client relations, he is dedicated to building strong connections in today’s fast-changing digital world. 


posted on 7/16/2026