Québec Tenders: When Opening Prices Are Published, the Lowest Price Wins Nearly 9 Times Out of 10

Adjudica analysis, 2026-06-07, opening results published on SEAO, 535,908 priced bids, 2016-2025.

In Québec tenders where opening prices are published, the lowest price wins almost nine times out of ten. Our analysis of 89,788 competitive tenders with opening amounts published on SEAO also shows that, in the contracts won by the lowest published opening price, the gap with the best losing price is 10.6% at the median. Since opening amounts aren't published for every award method, this finding should be read as an upper bound for competitive tenders as a whole. And it's not a recipe for cutting your prices: it's a signal that, in several segments, the gaps observed are narrow, while in others, compliance and the quality of your bid carry more weight.

TL;DR in 30 seconds

• The lowest published opening price matches the winner in 89.0% of the tenders analyzed, between 87.5% and 91.7% every year since 2016.
• When it wins, the median gap with the best losing price is 10.6%; 30.4% of contracts show a gap below 5%.
• In construction, the price-to-award link is clearest (civil engineering: 95.7%); in medical equipment and professional and administrative support services, the bid carries more weight.
• Roughly 1 tender in 10 doesn't go to the lowest published price. Compliance is a measurable risk, not a formality.

Who this article is for For Québec SMEs that respond to public tenders and want to know how much price actually decides, and by how much, before investing hours in a bid.

Contents

1. Where these numbers come from
2. The number: 89.0% in published openings
3. The tight markets: construction and special vehicles
4. The markets where the bid carries more weight
5. 1 time in 10, the lowest published price doesn't win
6. What it means for your SME
7. How to read these numbers (method and limits)

1. Where these numbers come from

When a public body opens the bids, it then publishes an opening result on SEAO: the list of tenderers and, for price-based tenders, the amounts submitted. We structured 535,908 priced bids covering 134,499 notices, then isolated 89,788 competitive tenders where the winner is identified and where at least two distinct businesses submitted a price. We didn't find a public compilation comparable at this scale in Québec.

An important note: these numbers describe the tenders whose opening amounts are published. This sample over-represents processes where price is decisive. The "almost 9 in 10" is therefore an upper bound for competitive tenders as a whole, not a universal law of public procurement.

2. The number: 89.0% in published openings

The lowest published opening price matches the winner in 89.0% of cases. The proportion varies little from one year to the next: between 87.5% and 91.7% every year since 2016, and in the same range for public tenders (88.4%) as for invitation-only ones (91.8%).

And when the lowest price wins, the gap is often thinner than you might think: 10.6% median gap with the best losing price. Among these contracts, one in four shows a gap of 3.8% or less, and 30.4% a gap below 5%. The gaps aren't always massive between the winner and the tenderers who weren't selected; in the contracts where the lowest published opening price wins, the observed boundary is often narrow.

This number sets no discount to apply. It only measures the historical gap between the first and second published opening price.

3. The tight markets: construction and special vehicles

It's in construction that the link between lowest published price and award is clearest. In civil engineering, the lowest published price wins in 95.7% of cases, with a median gap of 7.6%; in buildings, 94.0% and 8.6%. Special vehicles show one of the tightest gaps of all segments: 6.7% at the median, and about four contracts in ten show a gap below 5%.

For an SME in these sectors, the message isn't to cut your margin arbitrarily. It's that every assumption counts: productivity, transport, contingencies, choice of suppliers, understanding of the specifications. A few better-documented or better-controlled cost points can sometimes change a ranking, whereas a margin sacrificed without calculation weakens execution.

4. The markets where the bid carries more weight

At the other end of the spectrum, the lowest published price wins less often: 75.3% in medical equipment, around 82% in professional and administrative support services and information processing. And the gaps widen: the median gap reaches 18.0% in professional and administrative support services.

In these segments, it can be worth investing in compliance, technical evidence, documented experience and clarity of the proposal: price stays important, but it isn't always the only decisive filter. This is consistent with what we observe on tenderers' real win rate: winning is a matter of targeting and bid as much as final figure.

5. The most useful number: 1 time in 10, the lowest published price doesn't win

Here may be the most valuable statistic for an SME: even in this price-dominated universe, 11.0% of tenders don't go to the lowest published opening price. When that happens, the published opening price associated with the winner is at the median 16.4% higher than the lowest published opening price of the same tender.

The practical takeaway for your business: being the cheapest isn't enough. Roughly one tender in ten doesn't go to the lowest published opening price. That can come down to compliance, quality evaluation or a prescribed award mechanism, but the specific reasons aren't observed in this data. The time spent checking the requirements, forms and documents reduces an avoidable risk around your bid. The reasons a bid gets rejected are also largely documented and avoidable.

6. What it means for your SME

Before bidding, situate your segment:

These results are a historical analysis of public data. They don't constitute a price recommendation: every business must prepare its bids independently, according to its costs, its risks and the requirements of the specifications.

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

Adjudica analysis of the opening results published on SEAO (data cleaned, matched and computed by Adjudica, this is not an official SEAO publication). 535,908 priced bids across 134,499 notices, from 2016 to 2025. Businesses deduplicated by normalized name. Multi-lot tenders were aggregated at the notice level; restricting the analysis to notices with a single winner, the proportion where the lowest published price matches the winner stays in the same range: 89.0%.

Four important clarifications:

• The numbers cover competitive tenders (public or invitation-only, mutual agreement excluded) whose opening amounts are published on SEAO. This sample over-represents price-based processes: the numbers constitute an upper bound for competitive tenders as a whole.
• "Lowest price" here means lowest published opening price: not necessarily the lowest compliant price, nor the total cost to the buyer. The prices are opening prices, not the final contract values.
• Each tender counts once, whatever its value: a small contract and a very large one therefore carry the same weight.
• The award reasons (quality scores, compliance, rejections) aren't observed in this data; the segments are groupings of purchase categories, not legal regimes. These numbers describe the observed history; they don't predict the outcome of a future tender.

Article updated on July 22, 2026. Two methodology adjustments changed some figures: de-duplication of SEAO corpus exports (which lowers some totals) and the reclassification of mandated purchases as tenders rather than sole-source contracts. The figure-by-figure detail is in our methodology note.

Sources

• SEAO corpus: opening results (list of tenderers and amounts submitted) for price-based tenders.
• Gouvernement du Québec, "Suivi de la soumission et bilan": the opening results give access to the list of tenderers and the amounts submitted for price-based tenders.
• Act respecting contracting by public bodies (CQLR, c. C-65.1) and its regulations: award methods, quality evaluation, treatment of abnormally low prices.

Going further

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