Why incumbents keep winning law firm tenders (and how to change that)
There’s a quiet assumption baked into many legal tenders: the incumbent will win.
And often, they do.
Not because their proposal is better. Not because they’re cheaper. But because they feel safer, known, and “good enough”.
If you want to dislodge them, you’re not just competing on capability. You’re competing against comfort.
That requires a different strategy.
Understand what you’re really up against
Most firms approach tenders as a side-by-side comparison exercise. Credentials vs credentials. CVs vs CVs.
That’s not the real contest.
The real question in the client’s mind is this:
“Is switching worth the risk?”
The incumbent holds three powerful advantages:
Known performance (even if it’s not perfect)
Established relationships
Lower perceived risk.
If you don’t actively address those, your proposal will read well, score reasonably… and still lose.
Step one: surface dissatisfaction (carefully)
Clients rarely go to market because everything is going brilliantly.
There is almost always a trigger:
service inconsistency
lack of commerciality
poor communication
pricing frustration (budget blow outs)
huge loss on a deal or litigated matter
complacency.
Your job is not to attack the incumbent. That rarely lands well.
Your job is to help the client articulate what isn’t working, even if they haven’t fully named it themselves.
Rule of thumb: amplify the problem, not the competitor.
This shows insight, not aggression.
A subtle tactic (if you must)
Some proposal practitioners use what are sometimes called “ghost stories”.
This is where you hint at a common issue or risk without naming the incumbent, allowing the client to connect the dots themselves.
For example:
“Our lean resourcing model ensures clients only pay for the expertise they actually need, with senior oversight maintained throughout”
“We prioritise continuity in our teams, so clients aren’t repeatedly brought up to speed”
“Our approach to scoping and pricing is designed to minimise unexpected fee escalation”
If the client has experienced the opposite, the point lands.
Used lightly, this can help surface dissatisfaction without sounding critical.
But use this sparingly. If it reads like a veiled jab, it will undermine trust. In most cases, a clear articulation of what good looks like will do the job just as well, if not better.
Turning up the dial: FUD
At the more overt end of the spectrum is what’s commonly known as FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
The term has its roots in IBM sales training and was historically used to describe tactics that deliberately introduced concern about competitors to influence buying decisions.
In a legal tender context, this might look like:
Highlighting the risks of high team turnover and loss of continuity
Drawing attention to fee overruns or lack of cost transparency
Emphasising governance, supervision, and accountability gaps
Stressing the downstream impact of poor communication or delays
Done well, this can sharpen the client’s thinking around risk, particularly where they’ve had prior frustrations.
Done poorly, it can feel heavy-handed, cynical, or even manipulative.
This is not a recommended default approach. But in competitive panel processes, some firms will lean into it, especially where there are known sensitivities.
If you go down this path:
Keep it grounded in genuine client concerns
Focus on risks, not rivals
Avoid anything that could be seen as speculative or unfair
In most cases, you’re better off building confidence than creating doubt.
Step two: create a credible alternative
Many challengers fall into the trap of saying:
“We do the same thing… but better.”
That’s not compelling. It’s just risky.
Instead, you need to paint a clear and believable picture of a different experience:
How working with you will feel
What will be easier or faster
Where the client will see immediate improvement.
This is where most proposals underperform. They describe services, not outcomes.
Clients don’t switch for capability. They switch for a better future.
Step three: reduce the perceived risk of switching
Even if the client prefers you, inertia is powerful.
Switching firms can feel like:
Operational disruption
Internal scrutiny (“why did we move?”)
Potential downside if it goes wrong
So your proposal must actively de-risk the decision.
That might include:
Transition plans that feel seamless and low effort
Early-stage support or shadowing
Clear governance and communication structures
Demonstrated experience onboarding similar clients
You’re not just selling your service. You’re selling a safe transition.
Step four: show them what they gain (and what they avoid)
There are two sides to every decision:
The upside of switching
The downside of staying put
Strong bids do both.
On the upside:
Better responsiveness
More commercial advice
Stronger sector insight
More predictable pricing
On the downside (handled subtly):
Ongoing inefficiencies
Missed opportunities
Risk exposure
Lack of innovation
You’re helping the client weigh a decision they’re already considering.
Step five: widen the gap between you and “the pack”
In many tenders, several firms cluster together as “credible options”.
If you’re in that middle group, you’re unlikely to win.
You need to create distance.
That comes from:
Clear positioning (not trying to be everything to everyone)
Relevant experience that mirrors the client’s world
Distinct points of view, not generic statements
Memorable examples that stick with evaluators
Blending in is the fastest way to lose.
Step six: make the decision easy to justify
Even when clients want to switch, they still need to defend that decision internally.
Procurement, boards, or internal stakeholders will ask:
Why this firm?
What’s the benefit?
What’s the risk?
Your proposal should give them the language to answer those questions.
That means:
Clear, structured reasoning
Tangible benefits
Evidence that supports your claims
If they can’t easily explain why you’re better, they’ll default to the incumbent.
A final thought
Beating an incumbent isn’t about being louder, longer, or more polished.
It’s about shifting the client’s thinking.
From:
“We know them, and they’re fine.”
To:
“We’d actually be better off changing.”
That’s a higher bar. But it’s also where the real wins sit.
Amy Burton-Bradley is a legal tender strategist and the founder of Bidtique. Law Firm Tenders is her resource site for firms that want to sharpen their approach to tenders, bids, and proposals.