Risk policies often fail not because they’re wrong—but because they’re written in isolation from the people doing the work. In this article we explore how governance can actually enable smarter bids instead of slowing them down, and unpacks why one-size-fits-all policy often collapses under real-world pressure, and what we can do to build risk frameworks that are scalable, useful, and grounded in reality

Vendors often speak of “the customer” as if it were a single voice, a unified presence with clear goals and consensus. In complex managed services deals—especially with governments or large institutions—that fiction rarely survives first contact. What you’re actually dealing with is a shifting coalition of stakeholders, agendas, and informal power structures that no org chart or AI tool can fully reveal.

Margins can be misleading. I’ve reviewed deals that looked profitable on paper but collapsed under the weight of poor assumptions, rushed modelling, and misplaced risk. When that happens, it’s not just profit that evaporates—it’s trust, morale, and the relationship with the customer.

A few years ago, I witnessed a major services deal teetering on the edge of disaster—a pursuit so politically charged it could have ended a senior executive’s career. The internal push to progress was relentless, fuelled by the allure of a marquee government win. Yet, behind the scenes, one quietly made decision had already shifted the outcome.

AI is making waves in IT bid risk management, helping teams analyse contracts, flag risks, and even predict trouble before it happens. It’s fast, efficient, and never needs a coffee break. But let’s be clear - AI isn’t a replacement for human judgment. If you’re not putting the right checks and balances in place, you might end up trusting a system that doesn’t fully understand the nuances of your deals.

Many bid teams treat risk management as a hurdle, something to get past to focus on winning. That is a mistake. Risk, when used strategically, enhances credibility, sharpens strategy, and differentiates you from competitors. The key is integrating it into the win strategy rather than treating it as a formality

Throughout my years working with bid teams, I've noticed how easy it is for Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to become just another tick-box exercise. Questions like "Can we hit that uptime?" or "Is this response time achievable?" dominate discussions, but they rarely explore why these metrics genuinely matter to the customer.

Bidding is serious business—multi-million dollar deals, tight deadlines, and the fate of entire teams resting on a well-crafted proposal. But let’s be honest: the real challenge in coming to grips with the risk profile of a bid isn’t the pricing model or the compliance matrix. It’s the people.

Have you ever observed a Bid Team and an Executive Team discussing risk? The dynamics can be fascinating, and at times, unintentionally humorous. It's like watching two groups trying to communicate across a language barrier, each convinced the other side is speaking some strange dialect of business jargon.

There’s a persistent risk that keeps derailing managed services contracts, especially in government and regulated industries: the underestimated chaos of legacy IT.

There’s a quiet shift underway at the top of many organisations. Not the sort of dramatic restructure that gets announced with fanfare, but a slower, more consequential redefinition of what executive accountability actually means.