This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_for_bid , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_for_bids , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_quotation , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_proposal be merged, with a section in which the differences between them are explained? One good article might be better than four less developed ones. Davidlark (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_for_bid , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_for_bids and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_tender should be merged in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_for_bids . "Call for bids" gives 369 000 Google results, whilst "Invitation for bid" gives only 345 000.

In addition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendering is redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procurement, and it ought to be redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_for_bids

But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_quotation , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_proposal and other pages on this type of requests should be left alone, because they are different methods which can be used within a call for bids. It is important that the articles on these particular methods to be short, because this allows to spot the differences more easily. --Alvarosinde (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merged as proposed above. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]