Public tenders: the incumbent supplier loses 44% of the calls it defends

Adjudica analysis, SEAO open data, 54,500 re-competitions across 15,340 recurring contracts, 2021-2026.

When a public call for tenders comes back around, the winner of the previous round often doesn't. And when it does, it doesn't automatically win again: it loses 44% of the tenders it defends. Plenty of SMEs write off calls for tenders where a supplier is already in place, on the grounds that "the incumbent always wins". The public data tells a more nuanced story: the incumbent's edge is real, but it's very uneven from one sector to the next. That's what the 54,500 re-competitions published on SEAO from 2021 to 2026 show.

TL;DR in 30 seconds

• In 69% of the re-competitions observed, the previous winner is not among the bidders in the next cycle.
• When it comes back to defend its place, it loses 44% of the time (and a little more than four defenses out of ten on cycles at least six months apart).
• Project-based contracts (construction, engineering): 39% to 45% retention. Recurring goods (materials, specialized vehicles): about 75%.
• These rates describe an observed continuity, not the compliance of the processes: they support no conclusion of irregularity.

Who this article is for For Québec SMEs that hesitate to respond to a public call for tenders because a supplier is already in place, and who want a number rather than a hunch before investing hours in a bid.

Contents

1. Where these numbers come from
2. What this analysis measures (read before the numbers)
3. Three findings: rare returns, lost defenses, short streaks
4. Two worlds: project work rotates, recurring purchases hold
5. A few public buyers: what happens when the previous winner comes back?
6. What it changes for your SME
7. How to read these numbers (method and limits)

1. Where these numbers come from

We analyzed the competitive calls for tenders published on SEAO between 2021 and 2026 (public notices or by invitation, contracts by mutual agreement are excluded), tracking 15,340 recurring contracts: a public buyer that returns to the market for the same category of goods or services. That represents 54,500 re-competitions, reconstructed from the bidder lists published in SEAO's open data.

Two numbers set the starting point. In 69% of these re-competitions, the previous winner is not among the bidders in the next cycle. And when it does come back to bid, it loses 44% of the time.

2. What this analysis measures (read before the numbers)

Our unit of analysis is not the legal renewal of a single contract. We track a public buyer that returns to the market for the same purchase category. That's the unit we use here to approximate the commercial inertia an SME can sense: when a need comes back in the same purchase category, does the previous winner keep the place?

The nuance matters, especially in construction: a new call for tenders in the same category is often a distinct project, with a different schedule, location and constraints. "The incumbent doesn't come back" can therefore mean "it's busy elsewhere", not "it was displaced". Conversely, in recurring goods and services (feeding a facility, maintaining equipment, supplying materials), the same measure gets closer to a supplier relationship that repeats, or doesn't.

That's why the most solid figure in this analysis isn't the 69%, but this one: when the previous winner comes back to defend its place, it loses 44% of the time. Even limiting the analysis to cycles at least six months apart, where the assumption of a renewed need is stronger, it still loses a little more than four defenses out of ten.

3. Three findings: rare returns, lost defenses, short streaks

It loses 44% of its defenses. Across all the cycles observed, the previous winner that bids again wins the rest of the time, a little more than one time in two. On cycles at least six months apart, which look more like a renewed need, it wins back 62% of the time when it comes back. The edge is real, but it's far from automatic.

It comes back in only 31% of cycles. In nearly 7 re-competitions out of 10, the previous winner is not on the next bidder list. On cycles at least six months apart, it comes back a little more often (40% of cases), but absence remains the majority.

Long streaks are rare. In the window observed, about 89% of supplier-and-contract sequences show only a single win. That figure should be read as a ceiling: some sequences may have started before 2021 or continued past the window. Conversely, sequences of at least three consecutive wins are an observed minimum: 7.7% of recurring contracts saw a supplier win three calls for tenders in a row or more.

4. Two worlds: project work rotates, recurring purchases hold

The average masks a strong sectoral variation.

In project-based contracts (buildings, civil engineering, architecture and engineering services), the retention of an incumbent that defends sits around 39% to 45% (civil engineering 39.3%, buildings 44.5%, architecture and engineering 46.6%). In these categories, the next call for tenders isn't necessarily the continuation of the last one: reasoning first in terms of an incumbent to unseat can therefore be misleading. For a construction SME, the existence of a previous winner isn't enough to conclude that the call for tenders is closed.

In recurring goods and needs, the incumbent's edge is more pronounced. When the incumbent supplier comes back, it wins again 77.0% of the time for specialized vehicles (226 defenses) and 74.9% for construction materials (709 defenses). These gaps don't prove that a contract is closed. They may reflect, among other things, experience with the need, equipment already in place, compatibility or switching costs.

Between the two, a middle zone: maintenance and repair keeps its incumbent 62.8% of the time when it comes back (1,327 defenses) and medical equipment 73.6% (163 defenses), more than in project-based contracts, less than in the most captive goods.

5. A few public buyers: what happens when the previous winner comes back?

Before any per-buyer figure, a word of caution: public buyers don't order the same things. A high rate can reflect specialized purchasing, a small pool of qualified suppliers or equipment requirements; a low rate can reflect a high proportion of one-off projects.

A few reference points, with the number of defenses observed each time:

At Hydro-Québec, across the 59 defenses observed, the previous winner won 100% of them when it came back to bid. At the Centre d'acquisitions gouvernementales, retention reaches 84.5% (168 defenses). At the other end, at the City of Montréal, in road infrastructure, the incumbent that defends wins again only 32.9% of the time (252 defenses).

The ministère des Transports du Québec illustrates another reading: the previous winner comes back there in only 14.9% of the 5,516 cycles observed, but when it does, it wins again 58.9% of the time (822 defenses). A market can therefore show a high turnover of bidders while still leaving a measurable edge to the incumbent when it comes back.

6. What it changes for your SME

The message isn't "bid everywhere". The message is: don't write off a call for tenders just because an incumbent exists. The right instinct isn't to charge in, it's to sort.

Before investing hours in a bid, four questions are worth asking:

These numbers don't replace your own profitability calculation: a bid can serve to learn a market, but it has to stay consistent with your costs, your capabilities and your delivery constraints. These rates measure neither your compliance costs, nor the bonds, nor the size of the lots. They only indicate in which categories the previous winner has historically been harder or easier to beat when it comes back. The competition you'll face is the other half of the picture: the number of bidders varies sharply from one contract to the next.

Finally, if a requirement seems to unduly restrict competition, the answer isn't to bid at any price: calls for tenders provide mechanisms for questions and addenda, and there are structured recourses with precise deadlines, notably with the Autorité des marchés publics.

7. How to read these numbers (method and limits)

What we measured. A "recurring contract" refers to a buyer that launches at least two competitive calls for tenders in the same purchase category (UNSPSC classification), published on SEAO between 2021 and 2026. The "incumbent" is the winner of the previous call for tenders in the same market. Contracts by mutual agreement are excluded. Companies are deduplicated by normalized name. Bidders are identified on the vast majority of competitive calls for tenders. All results are rates calculated per call for tenders, without weighting by contract value. 2026 is a partial year: this affects volumes first, and may also shift the composition of the files observed.

What we don't measure. The legal renewal of a single contract, the profitability of a bid, the compliance of offers, price gaps, technical quality, or SMEs' specific access. Win sequences are observed within a bounded window: short streaks are partly a window effect (ceiling), long streaks an observed minimum.

This analysis doesn't say that a market is rigged when an incumbent wins again often, nor that it's easy when the incumbent loses often. It measures something more precise: the observed strength of the previous winner in recurring competitive calls for tenders. And that strength is, on average, lower than the received wisdom that "the incumbent always wins".

Sources

Figures updated on August 19, 2026 (corpus as of August 16, 2026). Our calculations now account more completely for the contracts each company has won, and some figures on this page have been adjusted.

• SEAO corpus in open format (OCDS standard), recurring competitive tenders.
• Act respecting contracting by public bodies (CQLR, c. C-65.1) and its regulations: framework for the award methods of public bodies.
• Autorité des marchés publics: oversight of public contracts and handling of structured complaints.

Further reading

Find all of Adjudica's analyses and data on public tenders.