The five stages
They follow on, and reversing the order produces false conclusions. Analysis precedes comparison, which precedes ranking.
The admissibility check. Is the bid complete, signed, returned on time and by the means prescribed.
The conformity check. Does the bid cover the scope requested, without reservations altering its substance.
The arithmetic check. Do unit prices, quantities and totals correspond.
Item-by-item analysis. Where do the variances between bids lie, and what do they explain.
Ranking. Against the criteria announced, and only at this stage.
Skipping the first three stages is the commonest cause of regretted awards.
| Step | Object | Expected result |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance check | Verify the bids are complete | Exclude or seek correction |
| Restatement on a common basis | Neutralise differences in scope | Comparable bids |
| Item-by-item analysis | Spot significant variances | Targeted queries |
| Ranking | Order by the announced criteria | Award recommendation |
| Analysis report | Record the process | Justification of the decision |
What to verify before comparing
Four points, all eliminating or corrective. They concern the formal compliance of the bids.
Reservations. A bid qualified by a reservation altering the scope is not comparable to the others until the reservation is priced.
Omissions. An item left blank is not an item at zero; it is an unpriced item, whose treatment must be decided expressly.
Transfer errors. A total that does not match quantities multiplied by unit prices calls for clarification.
Unrequested variants, covered in the article on variants and options.
The second point is the worst handled: adding up a bid containing blank items means comparing it against a different scope.
Reading item by item
This is the heart of the analytical work. It consists in restoring bids to a common basis.
An item-by-item comparison reveals what a total conceals.
Three configurations deserve attention: an item abnormally low with one contractor only, an item abnormally high with one only, and an item on which all bids diverge widely.
The third case does not call the contractors into question; it calls the package into question. General divergence on the same item signals a poorly drafted item, as the article on what an item must contain explains.
The first two call for a request for clarification, covered in the article on reading an abnormally low price.
The traps of ranking by amount
Four traps, all frequent.
Comparing different scopes, where bids do not cover the same works.
Ignoring deferred works. A bid that is lower because it excludes an item is not lower; it is incomplete.
Neglecting payment and programme terms, which have real economic value.
Forgetting unit prices, which will determine the cost of additional quantities in a measured contract.
The fourth trap is specific to measured contracts: a bid with a lower total but higher unit prices may cost more if quantities rise.
What the analysis must produce
Three documents, more useful than a simple ranking. They record the analysis and justify the decision.
The item-by-item comparison table, showing where the variances lie.
The analysis note, explaining those variances and flagging points needing clarification.
The reasoned recommendation, referred to the criteria announced before the tender.
The second document is the one that protects, since it shows the decision rests on analysis rather than on an amount.
The articles in this branch
The article on what makes bids comparable covers the condition of comparability. The conditions are listed there.
The article on reading an abnormally low price covers wide variances. The method of examination is described there.
The article on variants and options covers alternative proposals. Their treatment is explained there.
This article sets out a method of professional orientation. It does not constitute legal advice.