Tendering a model: a practical guide without losing control of the outcome
A tender for a model should not be approached as the purchase of a standard object, because in reality you are contracting for a piece that must communicate, function and last. It is not the same to acquire a display case, a table or a light fixture as it is to commission a model that has to represent a public work, explain a process or integrate into an exhibition space with a very specific finish. In these types of projects, the value lies not only in the final material, but also in how the idea is interpreted, how the details are resolved, and how it is manufactured so that the piece fulfills its function for years.
When this is not understood from the beginning, the document is usually too open-ended and It leaves room for offers that seem equivalent on paper, but are not in quality., neither detail nor durability. The LCSP requires precisely that the contract responds to a real need and that its object is well defined, something especially important in complex services such as this.
The goal is not to find the cheapest offer, but to ensure the desired result.
In a tender for a scale model, The most common mistake is thinking that all proposals are comparable because they start from the same general idea. In practice, this isn't the case: two companies can read the same specifications and offer very different solutions in terms of materials, level of detail, lighting systems, durability, or ease of maintenance. Therefore, rather than trying to "hit the right" with a specific contractor, the important thing is to draft the contract in such a way that only proposals that truly deliver the desired outcome are considered competitive.
The key is to guarantee quality from the outset., giving real weight to the team's experience, the technical proposal, the finishes, and the intended operation, and preventing price from becoming the sole criterion that decides on a piece that must last, perform well, and function flawlessly. This approach aligns with the logic of public procurement, which allows for the evaluation of quality, technical merit, and functional and aesthetic characteristics when they are linked to the subject matter of the contract.
How to define the object of the contract without losing quality or legal certainty
A poorly defined object causes each bidder to imagine a different model.
In a tender for a scale model, one of the most common mistakes appears even before the tender documents are published: failing to define precisely what needs to be contracted. At first glance, it might seem sufficient to indicate that a scale model is needed for an exhibition, a museum, or an institutional presentation, but That description is too open for a task that can be resolved in very different ways.
A purely exhibition model is not the same as an educational piece, a technical engineering model, an installation with integrated lighting, or a model with moving parts and interaction. If the contract does not clearly specify the intended use, scale, level of detail, size, installation location, and the type of experience it should offer, each company will interpret the commission in its own way. The result is that the bids cease to be truly comparable and the contracting authority ends up valuing proposals that, in essence, are not competing to make the same model.
The better the scope is defined, the easier it will be to protect quality.
Clearly defining the project doesn't mean limiting the competition, but rather clarifying the scope of the work and exactly what the service should include. In a tender for a scale model, it's advisable to specify from the outset whether the commission covers only manufacturing or also technical development, adaptation of plans, creation of graphic elements, lighting, electronics, transport, assembly, and commissioning.
It is also important to clarify whether a durable piece for continuous use, a demountable model, a temporary installation, or a solution prepared for maintenance and replacement of parts is expected. When the scope is clearly defined, the risk of receiving artificially low bids is greatly reduced. which have actually left out essential phases of the work or have resulted in a simplified version of the expected model.
A well-defined objective does not complicate the bidding process; on the contrary, it helps to make the procedure clearer, fairer, and much more useful in obtaining the result that is really needed.
What should the technical specifications include in a tender for a scale model?
The specifications must clearly explain what the model should be like and what it should do.
In a model-making tender, the technical specifications are the document that transforms a general idea into a concrete and comparable commission. Simply stating that the model must be "attractive" or "high-quality" is insufficient, as each bidder may interpret these terms differently. What is useful is to accurately describe the scale, dimensions, level of detail, acceptable materials, textures, finishes, colors, resistance to wear, type of lighting, and any moving or interactive elements that are part of the piece..
The Spanish Public Sector Contracts Law (LCSP) allows for the establishment of technical specifications to define the required characteristics, but it also requires that these specifications ensure equal access and do not create unjustified obstacles to competition. In other words, the tender specifications must be specific, but not arbitrary: they must require what the model needs to fulfill its function properly, not what artificially limits participation.
The better the idea is translated into verifiable requirements, the less room there will be to cut corners on quality.
One of the biggest risks in a model tender is leaving too much up to interpretation.. This is where cheaper bids often appear, bids that have actually reduced detail, simplified materials, or eliminated features that seemed implicit but weren't explicitly stated. Therefore, it's important that the specifications don't limit themselves to the visual aspect, but delve into verifiable aspects: which parts should be illuminated, which mechanisms should function, what maintenance the model will require, how it will be transported, how it will be installed, and what minimum durability requirements it must meet.
This need is even more important when the piece incorporates resources interactive or technological, Because in the sector there are models with programmable LEDs, automation, augmented reality, projection and very diverse materials such as plexiglass, forex, wood, metal or glass, and all of that changes the cost, the time and the complexity of the work. What is not defined in the specifications ends up being negotiated later during execution, and usually in worse conditions for everyone.
Tendering a model: award criteria to reward quality and experience
If the price is too high, the model starts to lose value before it's even manufactured.
In a tender of this nature, one of the most frequent mistakes is thinking that cost savings should dictate almost the entire award. On paper, this may seem reasonable, but in these types of contracts, it usually produces the opposite effect: The more the price is forced, the more likely it is that cuts in materials, simplification of details, fewer development hours, lower quality finishes, or poorer technical solutions will appear.
The Spanish Public Sector Contracts Law (LCSP) stipulates that contracts must be awarded based on a range of criteria, prioritizing the best value for money. It allows for the assessment of qualitative aspects such as technical merit, quality, and aesthetic and functional characteristics. Furthermore, when dealing with intellectual services, quality must be paramount, and price cannot be the sole determining factor. In a model, a very cheap offer can end up being expensive if it compromises the appearance, durability, or functionality of the final piece.
What should be rewarded is the actual ability to execute the model well.
The best way to protect the outcome of a tender is based on designing criteria that clearly distinguish who can best perform that work. That's why it makes sense to give weight to the technical proposal, the way in which manufacturing is resolved, the coherence of materials and finishes, and also to the team that will actually intervene in the project.
The LCSP allows for the assessment of the organization, qualifications, and experience of the personnel assigned to the contract when that human quality significantly influences the execution, something very relevant in a model where the result depends a lot on who interprets and builds it. When the tender specifications reward useful experience, technical competence and quality of resolution, the comparison between offers ceases to be a race to the bottom and becomes a much smarter evaluation.
Solvency, certificates, deadlines and actual scope of the project
Solvency should be used to identify useful experience, not to demand proof that is difficult to provide.
In a model tender, one of the most common problems arises when bidders are asked to prove prior experience with certificates of good performance in a format that does not always fit the reality of the sector. Many models are developed within larger museum projects, exhibition installations, or contracts where the model workshop works as a specialist for another company, so it does not always have a final certificate issued directly in its name.
Therefore, it is advisable to draft solvency requirements with a practical approach, allowing experience to be demonstrated through similar projects, technical documentation, reports, images, or references that genuinely help verify the team's ability to produce that type of part. The Spanish Public Sector Contracts Law (LCSP) leaves the determination of the means of demonstrating solvency to the contracting authority and requires that these requirements be detailed in the tender documents, with parameters proportionate to the subject matter of the contract. The important thing is not to ask for the "perfect" document, but to seriously verify that the successful bidder has the real ability to make the model well.
An unrealistic deadline and an inflated scope end up weakening the model.
It is also crucial to check whether the planned timeframe and defined scope are compatible. In a model tender, demanding a high level of detail, demanding materials, lighting, mechanisms, or interaction, while simultaneously imposing an excessively tight schedule, often leads to simplifications, rushed adjustments, or less durable solutions. This is not always apparent during the awarding process, but it ends up appearing later in the form of incidents, lack of robustness, or a final result below expectations.
The LCSP provides for preliminary market consultations as a useful tool to better prepare the contract and also regulates the analysis of abnormally low bids, precisely to avoid awards that on paper seem advantageous but in practice are difficult to sustain. A well-bid model needs ambition, yes, but also realism in terms of time, budget, and level of demand.
Having expert support from the start can prevent many mistakes
Preparing a tender for a scale model requires translating a complex idea into a clear, realistic, and technically well-defined specification, and this is where many of the problems that later complicate the awarding of the contract or the execution of the project often arise. When the scope, materials, level of detail, finishes, expected functionality, or actual manufacturing times are not clearly defined, It's easy to receive offers that are difficult to compare or proposals that, although they seem competitive, don't truly meet the quality requirements.
At IA Manufacturing we can help in that preliminary phase, providing a specialized vision to better define the model, detect weak points in the approach and guide the commission towards a clearer, more useful and more adjusted tender to the reality of the project. Sometimes, a good initial definition makes the difference between a well-resolved model and a process full of doubts, cuts, or subsequent changes.
Did you enjoy this article?
Want to see other similar posts?
