How to prepare a tender comparison that protects the employer
A tender comparison is not just a price ranking exercise. Done correctly, it is a formal document that protects the employer from future disputes and supports award decisions that will be scrutinised.
Miguel Rey
Senior Contracts Manager · Founder, Taskabeez
Every tender comparison produced in a hurry creates risk for the employer. A recommendation made on the basis of the lowest submitted price — without checking arithmetic, without analysing qualifications, without flagging abnormally low rates — may appear to save money at award but frequently costs significantly more by the time the final account is settled.
A rigorous tender comparison process protects the employer, supports a defensible recommendation, and provides the documentary foundation for any challenge to the award decision. Here is how to do it properly.
Receive and log all tender submissions
Record the date and time each tender was received, the tendering entity's full legal name, and the total tender sum. Note any tenders received after the deadline — these should be excluded unless there are compelling procedural reasons to accept them, and any decision to accept a late tender should be formally documented and approved by the appropriate authority.
Perform arithmetic checks on every tender
Before comparing tenders, verify that every submitted tender adds up correctly. Extension errors — where a rate multiplied by a quantity does not match the submitted total — are common and can significantly distort the comparison. Where arithmetic errors are found, they should be corrected in accordance with the tender instructions (usually the rate governs, and the amount is corrected accordingly). The correction should be noted formally and the tenderer informed.
Identify qualifications, exclusions, and departures from the specification
A tender that excludes a material element of the scope is not a compliant tender for the full scope. Every qualification, exclusion, or departure from the specification must be identified and listed. For each exclusion, estimate the cost of the excluded item using either a market rate or a rate from another compliant tender. Add this estimated cost to the excluding tenderer's total to produce a 'comparable total' that reflects the true cost of the full scope. This is the figure that should be used in the comparison, not the raw tender total.
Identify abnormally low rates
An abnormally low rate on a high-volume BOQ (Bill of Quantities) item can have a disproportionate impact on overall project costs — and can indicate that a tenderer has either misunderstood the scope or is planning to recover the shortfall through variation claims. For every high-value or high-volume BOQ item, compare the rates submitted by each tenderer. Where a rate is significantly below the others (as a rule of thumb, more than 20% below the average of the remaining tenderers), flag it for clarification before award. Document the flagging.
Produce the comparison matrix
Assemble all of the above into a formal comparison matrix. This should show, for each tenderer: the raw tender total, any arithmetic corrections, the value of qualifications and exclusions added back, the adjusted comparable total, and any rate flags. The lowest comparable total is the basis of the recommendation — but it is not automatic. Risk, programme, past performance, and financial stability all contribute to the final recommendation.
Write the formal recommendation
The recommendation report should state clearly which tenderer is recommended and why. It should reference the comparison matrix, note any risk flags or qualifications outstanding, and identify any pre-award clarifications required. Where the recommended tenderer is not the lowest on raw price but is the lowest on comparable total, or where another tenderer is recommended despite a higher comparable total, the rationale must be documented in detail. This document will be scrutinised if the award decision is ever challenged.
Retain the full audit trail
Every tender submission, every arithmetic correction, every qualification analysis, every rate flag, and the recommendation report should be retained in the project record. If a losing tenderer challenges the outcome, or if a dispute arises later about the scope that was tendered and awarded, this audit trail is your protection. Without it, the employer is exposed.
| Item | Tenderer A | Tenderer B | Tenderer C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Submitted total | £2,847,000 | £2,614,000 | £2,791,000 |
| Arithmetic corrections | — | +£4,200 | — |
| Exclusions added back | — | +£28,500 | — |
| Comparable total | £2,847,000 | £2,646,700 | £2,791,000 |
| Programme offer | 18 weeks | 16 weeks | 17 weeks |
| Abnormal rate flags | None | 2 flagged | None |
| Recommendation | — | — | RECOMMENDED |
The above is an illustrative example. Tenderer C is recommended not because it is the lowest raw price but because it is the lowest comparable compliant total once exclusions and risk flags are accounted for.
The quality of the recommendation matters
A tender comparison produced to the standard described above takes more time than a simple price ranking. But the protection it provides is significant. An employer who awards to the lowest raw price without completing this process is exposed to challenge from both losing tenderers and from disputes with the appointed contractor about the scope of the awarded contract.
The comparison document is the evidence trail that justifies the decision. If it is thorough, contemporaneous, and signed off by the appropriate authority, it is substantially more difficult to challenge. If it is a one-page price list with a tick next to the lowest number, it is not a defence at all.
Taskabeez Tender Analysis module
Taskabeez compares recorded tender sums and line items on Professional. It ranks by extracted price only, flags rates more than 20% below the cross-tender average, and labels missing figures as “Not stated in the uploaded documents”. It does not invent commentary or an award recommendation — that stays with you.
See the Tender Analysis module →