The stages of evaluation
| Stage | Subject |
|---|---|
| Formal check | completeness, timeliness, form, required declarations |
| Arithmetic check | unit rates, item totals, final sum |
| Suitability assessment | the firm, not the tender |
| Technical check | conformity with the specification, reasonableness of prices |
| Economic evaluation | identifying the most economically advantageous tender |
The order is not arbitrary. Tenders to be excluded formally are not examined substantively, and suitability is assessed separately from evaluation.
The price comparison by individual item
The central tool is the price comparison. It sets the tenders against one another item by item rather than merely by final sums.
Comparing final sums answers only which tender is cheapest. Comparing items answers three questions that matter for the cost control that follows.
| Question | What the answer reveals |
|---|---|
| Where do the tenders diverge sharply | wide scatter on an item regularly indicates an unclear description |
| Where does a single tender depart from the field | a rate markedly below or above the others calls for an explanation |
| Where does the field sit above the cost calculation | that is the point at which a cost deviation first becomes visible |
Preparing the price comparison by individual item is among the designer's basic services in assisting with procurement. The article on work phases 6 and 7 covers the fee classification.
How to spot loaded rates
A loaded calculation shifts cost between items without changing the total. It is impermissible, because it distorts price comparison and enables speculation on quantity changes.
Three patterns in the price comparison call for closer scrutiny. Each of them can indicate a loaded rate.
| Pattern | Why it must be checked |
|---|---|
| Low rates on items with uncertain quantities, high rates on certain ones | if the uncertain quantity is not called off, the advantage stays with the tenderer |
| Rates near zero or strikingly high on individual items | without any evident substantive explanation |
| Systematic departure from the pattern of the other tenders | although the total sits within the field |
Suspicion alone does not support exclusion. It does trigger a duty to clarify, and the clarification must be recorded.
Abnormally low tenders
Where a tender sits markedly below the others and below one's own cost estimate, it must be clarified. The tenderer is required to explain how the price was arrived at.
Clarification can have three outcomes:
| Outcome of clarification | Consequence |
|---|---|
| The low price is explicable | through particular methods, favourable procurement or capacity reasons; the tender is to be evaluated |
| The low price is inexplicable | proper performance cannot be expected; exclusion comes into consideration |
| A misreading of the specification is revealed | the commonest and most awkward case, because it points to a defect in the tender documents |
For the cost side the third case matters most. A tender resting on a misreading produces variations after award, and at a point when no competition exists.
Comparison against the cost calculation
This step links procurement to cost planning, and it is a basic service. It is also the last point at which a deviation can still be corrected effectively.
Comparing the tender results against the priced bills of quantities or the cost calculation shows whether the project remains within its frame. It meets a structural difficulty: tenders follow the procurement packages, the cost calculation follows the cost groups.
Without a mapping carried alongside, comparison beyond the overall total is impossible. The system is covered in the article on trade-oriented cost structure.
Where the comparison shows a deviation, the moment for countermeasures is already unfavourable. The deviation was effectively correctable before the documents went out. The article on cost management covers the options.
What does not belong in evaluation
Three practices are impermissible and nonetheless occur. All three make the procedure open to challenge.
| Impermissible practice | Why |
|---|---|
| Renegotiating price | impermissible under formal routes; what is permitted is clarifying the content of the tender, not altering it |
| Taking suitability criteria into evaluation | references and qualifications concern suitability, not the tender |
| Changing the award criteria after the fact | what is evaluated and how belongs in the tender documents in advance |
The first point distinguishes the formal routes from the negotiated procedure, under which the terms of contract may be negotiated. The system is covered in the article on procurement routes.
What to record
Four documents carry the award decision. They are also the basis of any later review.
- The price comparison by individual item.
- The clarification exchanges, with request, response and assessment.
- The reasons for the evaluation decision, against the criteria published in advance.
- The comparison against the cost calculation, as the basis for the client's decision.
The fourth is frequently treated as mere information. It is the point at which the client decides whether to carry the project forward in this form.
Related articles
This article reflects the position of the rules at the date of checking and serves professional orientation. It does not constitute legal advice and does not replace assessment of the individual case.