How to build a tender comparison schedule: columns, weightings and reporting

A professional comparison schedule has eight columns organised left to right in a logical order: identification, internal reference, tenders, summary, signal.

The priced bill column is the internal reference. It is not disclosed to the contractors, but it lets the economist and the client place each tender against the original estimate. The signal column is the most important one for the client: it summarises in a single line the alerts the analysis has raised and records any request for clarification.

The schedule below sets out a complete comparison for a scheme of eight dwellings across five packages. Contractor C on the frame triggered the abnormally low tender procedure and was rejected. Contractor A on the windows was recommended despite a higher price, on the strength of a better technical submission.

ℹ The joinery case: why recommend the dearest tender On the external joinery, contractor A at 74 100 € is recommended ahead of B at 71 200 € and C at 69 500 €, despite being 2 900 € to 4 600 € dearer. The justification is documented in the signal column: a better technical submission. Contractor A supplied product data showing a U-value of 0,75 W/m²K, a detailed programme and three references on comparable projects, where B and C returned incomplete submissions. That kind of decision, not taking the lowest price, is the one that best protects the client on the technical packages. It has to be justified in writing in the tender report, with the evidence that supports the technical merit.

Awarding on price alone is a frequent mistake on private contracts. Multi-criteria weighting formalises the balance between price and technical merit, and makes the decision defensible if it is challenged.

The standard 60/30/10 split suits the ordinary finishing trades. On the higher-risk technical packages, mechanical services, external joinery, insulated façades, a 40/45/10/5 split that gives more weight to technical merit is preferable. On the frame of a complex project, some clients require a minimum technical mark below which a tender is rejected whatever its price.

The technical mark is calculated from the technical submission. The criteria include the quality of the product data and its compliance with the specification, the staff assigned to the works, the programme offered and how it handles the interfaces, and the references on comparable projects.

The price mark can be calculated two ways. Linear: the mark is the lowest tender divided by the tender under assessment, times twenty. That method strongly favours the cheapest; a tender 10 % dearer than the lowest still scores 18,2 out of 20. With a floor: full marks for any tender within 10 % of the priced bill, then declining. That method is more protective against abnormally low tenders because it does not reward them.

The overall score is the price mark times its weighting, plus the technical mark times its weighting, plus the programme mark times its weighting. The contractor with the best overall score is recommended, unless disqualifying conditions have been found: an unjustified abnormality, missing administrative documents, or invalid structural warranty cover.

The tender report is what goes to the client at the end of the analysis. It has to be legible, structured and self-sufficient: the client must be able to take the award decision on that document alone.

• Cover page: the project, the tender date, the number of tenders received per package, a summary of the amounts recommended package by package, and the grand total.

• The complete comparison schedule: every tender, every column, with the standard colour coding, compliant, alert, rejected.

• Analysis sheets by package: for each package that raised an alert, the detail of the anomaly, the request for clarification, the answer received, and the conclusion.

• Award recommendation: package by package, with reasons covering price and technical merit, and any conditions to be met before signature.

• Financial summary: the works budget recommended against the client's original budget, the gap in cash and in per cent, and a recommendation on any adjustment.

ℹ The tender report commits its author The report is produced under the design team's responsibility. If there is a loss, a contractor failure, or a dispute over the quality of the works, that report is the first document the parties will examine to check that the award was made with due care. A report that recommends an abnormally low tender without having run the verification procedure, or that recommends the lowest price with no technical justification, can engage the design team's liability. The quality and traceability of the report are direct protection for the architect and the economist.

The tender comparison schedule is organised in eight columns: reference, description, priced bill, the tenders, the tender recommended, the gap, and the signal. The worked example across five packages illustrates the three standard cases: a coherent tender, an abnormally low tender rejected, and a dearer tender recommended on technical merit. The standard weighting is 60/30/10 across price, technical merit and programme, moving to 40/45/10/5 on the higher-risk technical packages. The report commits its author: it has to document every anomaly found, every abnormally low tender procedure run, and to justify every recommendation not based on price alone.

The nature of the figures quoted

The percentages and amounts quoted on this page are orders of magnitude for framing, not measurements. They illustrate mechanisms and proportions, and they substitute neither for a tender exercise nor for an estimate prepared on drawings.

• How to analyse a contractor's tender: the reading grid and the warning signs
• How to check interim valuations and prepare the final account
• Tender stage risks: under-priced tenders, inflation and contracts with traps