The tender analysis report: content, presentation and recommendations to the client

An analysis report is not an administrative formality, it is a protection for every party. For the client it documents the reasons for the award and lets them justify their choice if an unsuccessful candidate objects. For the design team and the economist it records the reasoning followed and demonstrates that the procedure was respected. For the successful candidates it is a reference on the basis on which they were selected.

On public projects the report must be kept for as long as the contract records are retained, a minimum of five years. On private projects its existence is the best defence against a challenge to the award by an unsuccessful candidate.

ℹ Who writes the report? The economist writes it, in coordination with the architect for the technical merit section. On public projects it is approved by the contracting authority before any notification. The report makes recommendations, it does not decide. The final award decision belongs to the client, and that distinction must be explicit in the document.

A complete report follows a seven-section structure, from the summary for decision-makers through to the traceability appendices. Each section has a specific audience and purpose.

Section 1 is often the only one a non-technical client reads. It must be written so that a decision can be taken without reading the rest, while pointing to the detailed sections behind every statement.

At the heart of the financial analysis is the comparison table, setting every candidate's offer against the others item by item and package by package, with the economist's estimate as the reference. It must show significant gaps clearly, upward and downward, and flag them visually so that they are easy to read.

The aim is not an exhaustive table that is hard to read but a synthetic document highlighting the key points: which package concentrates the largest gaps? Which candidate is systematically under-priced on the technical items? Which offer combines coherence and competitiveness best?

Before comparing, the economist checks the arithmetic of each schedule or bill. Errors — an incorrect subtotal, a line omitted, VAT carried across wrongly — are corrected according to the contractual rules: the unit rate prevails over the extension, and the erroneous subtotal is put right. The corrections are documented in the report.

Technical merit is assessed from the technical statement each candidate submits. It is scored against the criteria and weightings announced in the tender rules.

How to read it: contractor B takes the best overall score, 16.8/20, thanks to an excellent financial score as the cheapest offer, despite an average technical score. Contractor A is technically the strongest but its price, slightly above the median, costs it two points on the financial score.

The economist's recommendation for each package must carry four elements:

• The candidate recommended: named, with its offer corrected for arithmetical error.
• The argument for the choice: why this candidate, its overall score, its technical strengths, its competitiveness, the absence of anomaly.
• The residual risks identified: every point the client should watch during construction — a tight programme offered, substantial subcontracting, a specific item to monitor.
• The unsuccessful candidates: a brief statement of why each was not recommended — technical score too low, price out of line, an unjustified abnormally low offer — so that reasoned rejection letters can be written.

It must not substitute itself for the client's decision. Nor should it criticise unsuccessful candidates by name in excessive terms: an analysis report may be disclosable to third parties and must stay factual and proportionate in its wording.

ℹ A word on confidentiality Candidates' offers are confidential. The analysis report, which summarises and compares them, must not be circulated to unsuccessful contractors in a way that would let them reconstruct their competitors' offers. On public projects what may be disclosed to unsuccessful candidates is governed by the procurement code. On private ones the client remains free, but should be wary of disclosures that could create an obligation to renegotiate.

The report goes to the client for decision. The economist presents the analysis at a review meeting, answers questions and supports the client in reaching a decision. Should the client's decision diverge from the recommendation, the client remains free to choose, but the economist must ensure the risks attached to the divergent choice are documented in the report, for their own protection.

Once the decision is taken, the economist assists with notification — award and rejection letters, drawing up the definitive forms of agreement — and prepares the contracts for signature.

Quostra produces analysis reports structured on the plan set out here, adapted to the size and complexity of each tender. The report is delivered in editable Word, so the client can make adjustments, and as a signed PDF for archiving. It comes with the detailed Excel comparison table and the technical scoring grid.

Delivery: 3 to 5 working days from receipt of all the offers and technical statements.

You have better things to do. Submit your project on quostra.com and an economist produces your complete, documented award report.

The tender analysis report is the traceability and decision document of the award stage. Its seven sections cover the decision summary, the detailed financial analysis, the scored technical merit, the treatment of abnormally low offers and the reasoned recommendation. A good report lets the client decide with full knowledge, protects every party if the award is contested, and serves as a reference for managing the contract throughout construction.