1. The six parts of the report
The report on the candidatures and the tenders is the central document of the procedure. It needs six parts to be complete and defensible against a challenge.
Part 1, identifying the procedure: the subject of the contract, the reference, the procedure used, the date tenders were returned, and how many were received.
Part 2, the candidatures: checking that the candidature files are complete, and the administrative, financial and technical capacity of each candidate, with the grounds for any exclusion.
Part 3, price: a comparison of the amounts by package, the marks calculated on the formula published in the instructions, and the identification of any tender that may be abnormally low.
Part 4, technical merit: the technical submissions marked against the published sub-criteria, with the marks justified.
Part 5, the abnormally low tender procedure where it applies: the complete procedure documented, the request for justification, the contractor's answer, the analysis of it, and the reasoned decision.
Part 6, final ranking and proposed award: the weighted scores, the ranking, and the proposed contractor with a summary of the reasons.
2. Multi-criteria assessment: a worked example
The commonest price formula is the inverse proportional one: the mark is the lowest price divided by the candidate's price, times the maximum mark. It mechanically favours the cheapest tender without rewarding it excessively where the gap is very large. The formula has to be published in the instructions before tenders are returned.
| Criterion | Weight | Candidate A | Candidate B | Candidate C | Candidate D |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50 % | 312 400 € (18,3 / 20) | 287 600 € (20 / 20) | 341 200 € (16,8 / 20) | 268 900 € (possibly abnormal) |
| Technical merit | 35 % | 15,5 / 20 | 14 / 20 | 17 / 20 | 10 / 20 |
| Programme | 10 % | 16 / 20 | 18 / 20 | 14 / 20 | 16 / 20 |
| Environmental performance | 5 % | 14 / 20 | 12 / 20 | 16 / 20 | 8 / 20 |
| WEIGHTED SCORE | 100 % | 16,88 / 20 | 17,30 / 20 | 16,55 / 20 | To be investigated |
| Provisional ranking | 2nd | 1st | 3rd | Outside the ranking |
The table shows a common situation. Candidate D at 268 900 € is well below the median of around 313 000 €, but its technical submission is weak at 10 out of 20 and its price triggers the statutory procedure. Even if the justifications turn out to be adequate, its weighted score would still fall below Candidate B, which shows the best balance of price and technical merit. Candidate D is the archetype of the abnormally low tender: an attractive price masking inadequate preparation or an understated item.
3. The permitted price formulas
Several formulas are used, and each produces different results, particularly for very low or very high tenders.
One, inverse proportional, the commonest
The mark is the lowest price divided by the candidate's price, times the maximum. It is simple and transparent, but it rewards price reductions linearly: a tender at half the average price scores twice the mark of one at the average.
Two, against a reference price
The mark is the estimate divided by the candidate's price, times the maximum, capped at the maximum. It is neutral against the distribution of tenders, but it depends on the quality of the estimate: if the estimate is understated, normal tenders are penalised.
Three, bounded linear
The mark is calculated across a band between 80 % and 120 % of the median, with tenders outside the band scoring the maximum or nil respectively. It avoids over-rewarding very low tenders, at the cost of a more complex calculation.
ℹ The formula has to be published, not merely described The price formula must appear explicitly in the tender instructions before tenders are returned, not just the criterion and its weighting. Instructions reading "Price: 50 %" with no formula are inadequate. On a challenge, the administrative court will check that the buyer applied the published formula, and any departure from it, however minor, can annul the award.
4. The five-step statutory procedure
Triggering the abnormally low tender procedure is a legal obligation, not an option. A buyer who fails to trigger it on a tender suspected of being abnormally low engages its own liability if the contractor fails during construction.
| Step | Action | Timing | Documents | Consequence of omitting it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1, detection | The buyer or the design team identifies a tender that may be abnormally low, more than 20 % below the median of the other tenders or the estimate | On receipt of the tenders | A note in the report identifying the suspect tender | Breach of the statutory obligation, with a legal risk for the buyer |
| 2, request for justification | The buyer sends a written, reasoned request to the contractor, naming the items on which justification is expected | Before the assessment closes | A recorded letter with the list of items concerned | The procedure is invalid and the contractor can challenge any rejection |
| 3, the contractor's answer | The contractor answers in writing, justifying its prices by its organisation, its methods, the conditions of execution and the technical merit of its solution | 15 days from the request | The contractor's justification, with build-ups of rates | No answer means the tender is presumed abnormally low and can be rejected |
| 4, analysis | The buyer, with the design team, analyses the justification and checks the coherence and credibility of the prices explained | 8 to 15 days | An analysis note in the report, with a reasoned conclusion | An inadequate analysis invites a challenge from the rejected contractor |
| 5, reasoned decision | The buyer decides to accept the tender where the justification is adequate, or to reject it where it is not, with reasons recorded in the report | Before notification | A written reasoned decision, forming part of the report | An unreasoned decision can be annulled by the administrative court |
ℹ Three practical indicators First, against the median: a tender below 75 to 80 % of the median of the tenders received is always suspect, and that is the threshold buyers most commonly use. Second, against the estimate: a tender below 80 % of the buyer's estimate is a warning, particularly where the estimate was produced by an economist and is recent. Third, package by package: a tender can look within range overall while carrying one or two heavily understated packages offset by others priced high. The analysis has to be done package by package.
5. Marking the technical submission
Technical merit is marked from the submission the contractor returns. It is the most subjective part of the report and therefore the most exposed to challenge. The marking grid has to be settled before the tenders are opened and applied identically to every candidate.
| Element | Sub-criterion | What scores well | Warning sign |
|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Site organisation, phasing, handling the interfaces | A detailed, realistic programme, the risks specific to this project identified, coordination with the other packages | A generic method copied across, with no mention of the specifics of this project |
| Staff | Numbers, qualifications, presence of the site manager | The site manager named with a CV and comparable references, numbers consistent with the programme offered | The site manager unnamed or underqualified, numbers incompatible with the programme |
| Plant | Equipment specific to the package, and its availability | Equipment suited to the project and available on the date required, with no excessive reliance on hire | Equipment unspecified or to be hired, with an availability risk |
| References | Three in five years, public or private clients | References geographically close, clients contactable, values consistent with this contract | References too old, too far away, or far smaller than this contract |
| Waste and environment | A waste management plan, segregation | Recycling routes identified, with measurable commitments | A generic plan, no quantified commitment, a sheet copied off the internet |
| Programme | Milestones, total duration, float | A programme with the critical path identified, a duration at or below the contract period, realistic float | No critical path, an unrealistic duration, no float, and a risk of delay |
The most important rule: the mark given to each sub-criterion has to be justified by an explicit sentence in the report. An unjustified mark passes unnoticed while nobody objects, and becomes the first target as soon as an unsuccessful candidate brings a challenge.
6. Handling administrative irregularities
Before analysing the substance, the buyer has to check that the candidatures are administratively regular. Three kinds of irregularity arise.
Missing documents: under the adapted procedure the buyer can ask the contractor to complete its file within a short period, usually 5 to 10 days. In an open tender, missing documents mean automatic exclusion where the instructions made them compulsory.
An incomplete tender: a tender that does not price every line of the pricing schedule is irregular, unless the instructions allowed tendering for part of the works.
An unacceptable tender: a tender whose price exceeds the budget available can be declared unacceptable, provided the buyer set a maximum envelope in the instructions beforehand.
In summary
The tender report is a legal document in six parts: procedure, candidatures, price, technical merit, the abnormally low tender procedure where it applies, and the ranking and award. The price formula has to be published in the instructions; three are in common use, inverse proportional, against the estimate, and bounded linear. The statutory procedure is compulsory and runs in five steps: detection, request for justification, the contractor's answer within 15 days, analysis, and a reasoned decision. Failing to trigger it carries a legal risk for the buyer. The three indicators are a tender below 75 to 80 % of the median, a tender below 80 % of the estimate, and analysis package by package. The marking grid for the technical submission covers method, staff, plant, references, waste and programme, and every mark has to be justified by an explicit sentence.
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.
Articles liés
Sources: the BT construction cost indices published monthly by INSEE on its 2010 base, used to update the figures · construction cost statistics from SDES, the statistical service of the ministry responsible for construction · regulatory texts published in the Journal officiel and consolidated on Légifrance for the requirements cited.