“We need to save” — few project days pass without someone saying it. Budgets are tight, margins thin and clients are under pressure to cut costs. The cheapest offer seems the obvious choice. But what looks sensible at first is often a trap in practice.

Especially in architecture and trade‑fair / event builds, the cheapest bid is rarely the most economical. Change orders, quality problems and delays eat more money than the initial ‘savings’ ever promised. This whitepaper explains why clients need to rethink their decision culture — and how to do it.

Many clients equate price with economy. They compare totals without scrutinising the underlying scope — leading to bad decisions:

• Different scope: one offer includes specialist planning and site supervision; the other doesn’t — you buy it later at a premium.
• Quality gaps: components differ hugely in lifespan and operating cost, even if they look similar on paper.
• Change orders as a business model: some vendors bid low to win — and recoup later via change orders.

That’s how the ‘cheapest’ bid becomes the most expensive.

Change orders: the most common cost trap. What’s missing in the tender is added later — expensively. Some bidders leave deliberate ‘gaps’.

Time loss: low bidders often save on staffing. The result: delayed workflows, frantic rework, missed deadlines. In trade‑fair builds with fixed openings, that’s fatal.

Quality issues: cheap equipment fails sooner; cheap workmanship looks unprofessional. In the end you fix it — often during operations.

Put together, the message is clear: price and cost are not the same.

Tenders often bring bids that sit 50 or 60% below the average. That sounds like a jackpot — “half the price!” — but in reality it’s a warning sign.

Why that’s a problem

• Unbalanced pricing: no vendor can deliver at half the market price without slashing quality, safety or staffing.
• Change‑order strategy: many dumping prices are bait — the real cost arrives via change orders.
• Vendor instability: running permanently below cost threatens the company — with the risk of collapse mid‑project.

The medium‑term risk

• Extra cost from change orders,
• Quality and functional defects,
• Higher operating costs,
• in the worst case project termination or re‑tendering.

Compliance and sustainability

• Sustainability: extreme low prices often come from wage dumping, inferior materials or ignoring safety standards — at odds with common sustainability strategies.
• Compliance: many organisations mandate fair, transparent and quality‑oriented procurement. A dumping‑price award typically breaches these principles — with internal and external consequences.
• Reputation: stakeholders, employees and the public notice when price trumps responsibility — it erodes trust in the brand.

A ‘bargain award’ risks not only the project — it risks the client’s credibility and legal safety.

The key is to change the evaluation culture.

Multi‑criteria evaluation: price is only one factor. You also need:

• Quality and completeness of planning,
• Experience and references,
• Transparency of the costing,

Awareness and training: many clients need to learn how to assess offers qualitatively. Training, internal guidelines and external advice help change the culture.

A trade‑fair contractor awarded lighting for an 800 m² stand to the lowest bidder. Result:

• Missing interface planning → €60,000 in change orders.
• Inferior luminaires → poor colour quality on displayed products.
• Delay → build finished two days late.

The project ended 25% over budget — far more expensive than the second‑lowest, more serious offer.

• Build awareness: show with examples and numbers how ‘bargain awards’ fail.
• Demand transparency: offers must be detailed — no unexplained lump sums.
• Pay for planning: specialist planning belongs in the budget — it’s not free.
• Anchor compliance: procurement must respect internal rules and sustainability goals.

Conclusion: the cheapest offer is almost never the best. Clients who focus only on price act short‑sightedly — risking change orders, quality issues, delays and breaches of their own compliance standards.

An offer is economical when it balances total cost, quality, safety and sustainability. That’s how you create project success that lasts.