MARATTO

article · Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications

Building competitive advantage through supplier debriefing quality and tendering capabilities

In plain language

Quality debriefings provided to suppliers after bidding processes directly and indirectly influence the tendering success of small and medium enterprises. An examination of survey responses from 352 small and medium enterprises shows that higher supplier debriefing quality improves bidding outcomes both on its own and by strengthening specific business capabilities. In particular, innovative capabilities, procedural capabilities, and relational capabilities serve as key pathways linking thorough debriefing to increased contract awards. These distinct capability-building mechanisms enable enterprises to refine their procurement practices, navigate formal tender procedures more effectively, and build stronger business connections. Overall, the evidence demonstrates that feedback delivered after tender decisions plays an active role in helping smaller enterprises build competitive advantages during public procurement competitions.

Key takeaways

  • Supplier debriefing quality directly enhances the tender success of small and medium enterprises in public procurement.
  • The positive effect of supplier debriefing is also channelled indirectly through procedural, innovative, and relational capabilities.
  • Cultivating these specific tendering capabilities allows smaller firms to establish a competitive advantage when competing for public contracts.

Why it matters

Winning public contracts is vital for small and medium enterprises seeking growth. Knowing that detailed procurement feedback actively improves internal procedures, innovation, and relationships gives both procurement authorities and bidding firms a clear justification to invest in high-quality debriefing processes. Better feedback mechanisms support fairer competition and help smaller businesses compete more effectively for public tenders.

Commercialisation angle

The findings can be applied directly by small and medium enterprises to design internal capability programmes focused on procedural, relational, and innovative tendering skills. Public procurement bodies can also use the insights to structure formal debriefing guidelines that support vendor development. Because the study relies on survey data from 352 operational enterprises, the identified pathways are applied and tested, offering actionable insights for procurement policy and business development.

AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.

Abstract

Purpose The study aims to examine the association between supplier debriefing quality (SDQ) and SMEs' tender success, with a focus on the mediating role of tendering capabilities (Procedural, innovational and procedural capabilities). Design/methodology/approach Cross-sectional survey data were collected from 352 Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to validate the model. Data was analyzed using Smart Partial Least Squares (SMART-PLS) version 4.0. Findings The study found that SDQ has both direct and indirect effects on SMEs' tender success through innovative, relational and procedural capabilities. Research limitations/implications The study highlights the need for SMEs to develop key tendering capabilities to gain competitive advantage in winning more contracts in public tendering. Originality/value This study extends the emerging literature by examining how SDQ influences SMEs' tender success through innovative, procedural, and relational capabilities in public procurement and supply chain. The study therefore addresses an important gap in the literature by examining the capability-building mechanisms through which SDQ may enhance SMEs' tender success.

Research topics

  • Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
  • Quality and Supply Management
  • Public Procurement and Policy

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1108/mscra-02-2026-0020

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.