Rejection, Perception and Corruption in Consulting

After 30 years in the engineering consulting industry, successfully identifying why a coastal design isn’t performing to expectations is something that comes comparatively easily. When I had identified reasons why a major piece of marine infrastructure was flawed, after more than 30 other engineers hadn’t spotted it, I took it somewhat for granted that I’d be a shoo-in to support a concept design for remedial works.

However, I was rejected from this role that I could do in my sleep, citing “not enough experience in this region” and “shows only design review experience, not detailed design coordination”. Instead, the role was directed towards one of the 30 previous engineers…

While I have a fairly thick skin, the sense of rejection surprised me, and reminded me of previous cases throughout my career. I should admit here that I’ve been fortunate to have comparatively few professional rejections.

A common first response is to take the “feedback” literally. This may push you towards debating why the “feedback” is unfair or scurrying around trying to amend your CV to address deficiencies. However, while you might take some positive criticism, especially if you’re missing key information, it is important to recognise the application reviewer usually want to write as little as possible, and it often working towards a marking key. Reviewers are often working with primitive scoring systems, trying to get an overall rating they feel comfortable with… This may produce some scoring “oddities” and some elaborate gymnastics to justify those scores: I have seen a team with 120 years of combined experience being given an experience score of “marginal”. So… take rejection feedback with a pinch of salt…

It's also worth remembering that application reviewers are human, have their own understanding and may not have the time and energy to go through everything they’ve been given. A good example is where we missed out on a tender where we are THE subject matter experts. We said we’d do a simplified version of a study that we’d completed over the previous 10-years. The young reviewer, who didn’t read the extracts provided, didn’t know our expertise, threw our proposal out because we suggested a “simplified” assessment. I think I’ll avoid that word in the future and just stick with “comprehensive”…

A second phase of response to rejection is to trying to second guess what the reviewers are NOT saying. Believe it or not, it is usually about price. However, after a few setbacks, particularly with conflicted feedback e.g. “we wanted a single team” when they hand the project to a consortium, it is easy to start thinking “it’s about me (or my team)”: not enough grey hair, too much grey hair, wrong University etc…

Don’t second guess yourself. It’s usually about price, and if it’s not, it’s often about Perceptions, the Toolkit, or The Fear of the New Relationship.

Perception is hard to manage, and perceptions are not always fair. In the hyperbolic world of SEO, every consultancy is an expert on everything, so it can be hard to stand out. Highlight your unique selling point too much and you risk being pigeonholed… However, once you’ve got past the hurdle of introduction, your capacity is judged by each and every client representative, based on what each person has seen. This means that if they’ve only seen your complex work, they probably won’t ask you for “quick and dirty” outcomes. Client staff change can dramatically shift the perception of your organisation: for my main client, our role has totally changed with each manager.

Consultants are part of a client’s Toolkit. As always, the connection is controlled by budget, client objectives and programs, which influence cost, time and quality implications. For this reason, clients may need a mix of consultants, whether punctual or punctilious, and the key objective is generating project deliverables cost-effectively. Sometimes less obvious, other drivers can include variation of in-staff capability, and the process of knowledge exchange. Along with budget, most client objectives can swing on the whims of business and politics. These factors are never discussed if you receive feedback on a rejected tender, but they can be just as important as CTQ, and almost certainly hold more weight than your company’s inclusivity policy.

As expounded by many others, an essential component to cost-effectiveness is building of client-consultant relationships. This results from streamlined communication, refined definition of required deliverables, and accumulation of systems and data. This, hopefully, produces a two-way sense of investment in one other, along with building a level of trust.

The Fear of the New Relationship is a tremendously common factor in commercial rejection. “The method looks alright, but there’s a few weasel words hiding there; the staff tick off the necessary roles, but how can I understand exactly what they did in their outlined experience?“ Uncertainty can rapidly be compounded into a poor assessment rating. The sense of investment in an existing consultant, warts and all, can create massive inertia against trying a new consultant. This sometimes means a poor consultant outcome is rewarded by a subsequent job to fix their own mistakes.

Being “in” with a client is commercially valuable and it can be beneficial to client outcomes. However, for those on the “outside” this may seem unfair, possibly even corrupt. The cost of responding to tenders often represents a significant overhead for consultants, and always finishing second is commercially worse than one win in five starts. For this reason, it is important for consultants that frameworks for consultant engagement are fair and functional. Ideally, these frameworks should transparently support client objectives and operations, including building sustained client-consultant relationships.

Consultant engagement can veer towards Corruption if the client creates hidden barriers to competition. Some examples to be wary of include:

1.        Existence of ‘first-refusal’ relationships between the client and incumbent.

2.        Leaving out critical tender information, to which the incumbent consultant has access.

3.        Transfer of information submitted in a bidding process to the incumbent.

4.        Executive over-ride, where an assessment process is subject to veto.

As a consultant, it’s not always easy to spot such issues, but it is worth your time to assess and maybe do what you can to protect yourself. As a client, it’s best to avoid these actions, or at least be open about the situation.