How Much Do Losing Bids Lose By? 62,370 Quebec Public Tenders, Analyzed

Across 62,370 Quebec public tenders awarded between January 2021 and September 2026, the median gap between the lowest and second-lowest bid was 11.9%. One in seven was decided by less than 2%. More than one in three had a gap of 20% or more.

The number of bidders explains most of the difference. With two bidders, the typical runner-up was 18.8% above the lowest price. With eight or more, the gap narrowed to 6.5%.

That is the practical value of competitor pricing data. It tells you, before you price a bid, whether you are likely in a tight race or a wide one.

Most Canadian procurement systems publish only the winner. Quebec's SEAO is different: when bids are opened, it publishes the names of the bidders and, for most tenders, the price each one submitted. Cothon has collected 404,533 of these bids across 84,470 notices, 270,841 of them from bidders who did not win.

For this analysis we used awards dated January 1, 2021 to September 18, 2026. A "competition" is one notice, or one lot within a notice when a tender is split into lots, with at least two priced bids. We kept total-price bids in Canadian dollars of $1,000 or more and excluded bids priced per unit or flagged as unit mismatches, so every price in a competition is comparable.

Two caveats matter. First, the lowest bid does not always win: bids can be rejected as non-conforming, and some tenders are scored on quality as well as price. This analysis measures how close the submitted prices were, not who was awarded the contract. Second, SEAO records show only one priced bid for 22,415 of the 84,785 lots in the period (26%). Some genuinely drew a single bidder; others may have incomplete bid records. They are excluded from the gap figures because a gap needs two prices.

The median gap between first and second place was 11.9%. The distribution is wide.

13.6% of competitions were decided by less than 2%. 5,022 of them, 8.1%, by less than 1%. In these tenders, a rounding decision on overhead or a slightly different assumption about mobilization could change the result.

35.2% had a gap of 20% or more. In these tenders the lowest bidder could have priced considerably higher and still won on price. Across all competitions, the median spread from the lowest to the highest bid was 38.7%.

Both tails are useful to know about before you bid. A tight category rewards precise estimating. A wide one suggests that bidders are pricing very different scopes or risk assumptions, and that reading the solicitation closely may matter more than sharpening the pencil.

The single strongest pattern in the data is the number of bidders. A third of all competitions (20,688) had exactly two priced bids, and in those the median gap to the runner-up was 18.8%. Each additional bidder narrowed it: 12.6% with three, 9.8% with four, 8.6% with five, and 6.5% with eight or more.

That is partly arithmetic: more prices packed into the same range leave less room between the lowest two. It is also practical. If you can estimate how many firms will bid, from past awards for the same buyer and category, you can estimate how much room there is likely to be between you and the next price.

The average across all competitions was 4.0 priced bids. By buyer, health institutions drew the most bidders (4.4 on average) and had the widest median gap (15.0%). Ministries had the tightest median gap (10.7%), with municipalities (11.2%) and education bodies (11.6%) in between.

We grouped competitions by the category text on each SEAO notice. The contrast between construction and services is sharp.

Building construction and maintenance and roads and paving both drew 4.4 bidders on average, with a median gap of 8.8%. These are mature, competitive categories with standard specifications.

Snow removal drew only 3.2 bidders on average and had a median gap of 18.2%. Snow contracts are local and equipment-bound, so fewer firms can credibly bid on any given territory.

Engineering and professional services had the widest median gap, 19.1%, but the smallest sample (884 competitions) and an important caveat: many professional services tenders in Quebec are evaluated on quality first, with price opened only for qualified firms. The price gap tells you less about who won there.

Check the bidder history before you price. The same buyer tends to attract a similar field for the same kind of work. If past tenders drew two bidders, expect room between first and second place. If they drew eight, expect a race decided by single digits.

Look up who has been bidding, not just who has been winning. A firm that finishes second repeatedly by 2% is your real competitor, even if it has never won. That information exists only in losing-bid data.

Treat a wide gap as a question. If the typical spread in a category is 30% or more, bidders are likely reading the scope differently. The cheapest path to winning may be understanding the requirements better, not cutting price.

Cothon shows likely bidders and historical price spreads on every new SEAO tender, built from the same data used in this analysis.

Can I see who bid on a Quebec government tender?

Yes. SEAO publishes bid-opening results for public bodies in Quebec, including the names of bidders and, for most tenders, the prices submitted.

Does the lowest bid always win in Quebec?

Not always. Bids can be rejected as non-conforming, and some tenders, notably many professional services contracts, are evaluated on quality before price. This analysis measures submitted prices, not award outcomes.

How many bidders does a typical Quebec public tender get?

Among competitions with at least two priced bids from 2021 to 2026, the average was 4.0 and the median was 3. SEAO records show a single priced bid for about a quarter of lots.

Is similar data available for federal contracts?

No. CanadaBuys award notices and federal proactive disclosure name the winning supplier and contract value, but not the other bidders or their prices.