Comparing tenders and recommending an appointment
Compare scope, price, delivery and qualifications on a common basis, then write a clear recommendation with conditions before award.
by Jack Butler-Kettle · 60–90 min course · About 17 min readShare
Your course at a glance
Start here: Beginners comparing quotations for a small private construction package. No procurement background is assumed. Public procurement and complex regulated competitions need their own procedures and specialist advice.
Your finished output: Produce a like-for-like tender comparison and a reasoned recommendation with clarifications, evidence and approval conditions.
Plan for 60–90 minutes. The suggested activities total about 75 minutes: 5 to prepare, 42 for lessons and practice, 8 for the knowledge check and 20 for the final task. This is a planning estimate, not a timed or accredited course. Pause or repeat any stage.
You need a calculator and somewhere to write. All project facts and figures are fictional learning examples. Use them for the exercises; keep confidential project information out of these practice fields.
- Set a common scope and evaluation basis before comparing prices.
- Separate submitted prices from comparison adjustments.
- Evaluate delivery, quality and qualifications with evidence.
- Write a conditional recommendation and preserve the award record.
For support with this work on a live project, see Contractor tendering and comparison for clients.
Before you begin · 5 minutes
Tender A is £90,000 and tender B is £95,000. What would you need to know before recommending A as the better offer?
An uncertain answer is a useful starting point. Keep it and compare your reasoning after the course.
0 of 6 lessons reviewed · 0 of 5 final checks ticked
Review ticks record your own progress. Written work is self-assessed against the model and criteria; it is not automatically marked.
Use Save progress to keep your writing and review ticks on this device.
Saved work stays in this browser’s storage; it does not sync between devices. Quiz selections are not saved. On a shared device, download your work and clear it here.
1. Learn and practise
Work through the lessons in order. Read the explanation, attempt the task without the model, then compare your reasoning. Correct your work before ticking the lesson. Expand one lesson at a time or keep several open.
1. Understand what you are comparing
About 7 minutesA tender is an offer to carry out defined work on stated terms. A comparison should help the decision-maker understand the whole offer: scope, price, time, quality, qualifications and risk. The lowest number may exclude work that another tender includes or depend on a different programme.
Start with the decision. What package is being bought, by whom, under which proposed terms, and by what date? Identify the person authorised to approve the recommendation and the procedure governing the procurement. This course uses a small private-package example; it does not teach all rules for public procurement or every tender process.
Separate three numbers: the price submitted by the tenderer, the evaluator’s adjusted comparison amount, and the eventual agreed contract sum. An evaluator’s allowance for a missing item is not an accepted quotation from the tenderer. Keep the original offer unchanged in the record.
A good comparison exposes uncertainty and identifies what must be resolved before award. It should be possible to explain why an offer is recommended without relying on an unexplained score or a general impression of the bidder.
Your turn
Write three questions about scope, two about programme and one about terms that you would ask before comparing the £90,000 and £95,000 offers. Explain why an adjusted comparison total is not automatically a contract price.
Compare your reasoning
Ask whether both offers include the same design/specification, attendance and testing; whether they meet the required start/completion dates and resource plan; and whether their qualifications change the proposed terms. A comparison adjustment is the evaluator’s stated assumption until clarified and agreed. It helps compare offers but cannot silently amend a tenderer’s contractual offer.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
2. Set the common scope and evaluation rules
About 7 minutesPrepare a tender pack that identifies the scope, drawings and revisions, specification, pricing schedule, programme, proposed terms and return requirements. Define how questions and clarifications will be handled. Keep a record of the information issued to each tenderer and any common updates.
Decide evaluation criteria before seeing the prices. Separate essential requirements from scored preferences. An essential completion date or required competence should not disappear inside an attractive average score. For a simple private exercise, you might compare scope compliance, deliverability, quality evidence and adjusted price, with a written explanation rather than a complex scoring model.
Where weighting or scoring is used, define the scale and evidence required in advance and follow the applicable process. Do not invent new criteria to favour a preferred outcome after returns arrive. Maintain confidentiality and do not disclose a competitor’s detailed pricing as a bargaining shortcut.
The RICS tendering strategies guidance gives wider context. The exercise here focuses on comparing returns and documenting a defensible recommendation, not selecting every procurement route.
Your turn
Create a four-row evaluation plan for a package that must finish in eight weeks. Include one essential requirement, two evidence-based quality/delivery checks and the price comparison. State what you would record if a bidder cannot demonstrate the essential requirement.
Compare your reasoning
The eight-week completion requirement can be essential if established by the brief. Check a credible programme and resource plan, relevant competence/quality evidence, and like-for-like price. Record a failure or unresolved requirement explicitly and follow the stated evaluation process; do not offset it with a low price or a high unrelated score. Clarify uncertainty consistently where the procedure permits.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
3. Build the like-for-like price comparison
About 7 minutesPreserve each original tender and list its qualifications. Check arithmetic and completeness using the applicable correction procedure. Do not silently alter a bidder’s price. Record clarifications and the bidder’s response, including whether a price is confirmed or revised.
The running example compares A at £90,000, B at £95,000 and C at £92,000. A excludes a required £8,000 item. B includes the required scope. C excludes a required £2,000 item. For comparison only, assume those missing items can be valued at £8,000 and £2,000. Adjusted comparison totals are A £98,000, B £95,000 and C £94,000.
Show the submitted price, each adjustment, its source and confidence, and the adjusted total. Mark unconfirmed evaluator allowances clearly. Do not deduct an included feature merely because another bidder omitted it unless the common scope and process justify that treatment.
The £94,000 comparison for C is not enough to recommend it. Check whether it can deliver the required scope and programme and resolve its excluded item before award. The comparison makes the price basis visible; it does not finish the procurement decision.
Worked fictional example
Preserve the offer and show comparison adjustments separately Tender Submitted + evaluator adjustment Comparison amount A £90,000 + £8,000 missing scope £98,000 B £95,000 + £0 £95,000 C £92,000 + £2,000 missing scope £94,000 Your turn
Build a three-column comparison for A, B and C. Mark which additions are evaluator assumptions. Rank adjusted prices, then explain why the original ranking changes and what needs clarification before treating C’s £94,000 as an agreed price.
Compare your reasoning
Submitted ranking is A £90,000, C £92,000, B £95,000. Adjusted ranking is C £94,000, B £95,000, A £98,000. A’s missing scope reverses its apparent advantage. The £8,000 and £2,000 additions are comparison assumptions until supported and agreed. Ask C to confirm inclusion, price, programme and any connected qualifications through the proper clarification process.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
4. Test delivery and quality without hiding failures
About 7 minutesReview the evidence behind each offer. A statement that a bidder can meet the programme should be supported by a credible sequence, resources, lead times and interfaces. Relevant experience should connect to the actual work, not merely a recognisable project name. Check the competence and approval requirements appropriate to the package through the procurement process.
In the running example, C’s programme is ten weeks against the established essential eight-week requirement. B demonstrates eight weeks and complete scope. A states eight weeks but still needs its excluded scope and delivery assumptions clarified. On these facts, C’s lower adjusted comparison amount does not remove the programme failure.
Keep factual findings, evaluator judgement and outstanding enquiries separate. “Programme states ten weeks” is a factual finding; “unlikely to recover two weeks without extra resources” is a judgement needing explanation. Record the basis and avoid confident claims unsupported by the return.
If the brief or procurement strategy changes, manage that change through the applicable process. Do not quietly waive an essential requirement for one bidder while evaluating others against it. A fair, consistent record helps the approver understand the decision and its limitations.
Your turn
Write a short evaluation note for C and B using the supplied facts. Explain whether B can be recommended immediately or whether any checks remain even though its offer meets the stated scope and programme.
Compare your reasoning
C has the lowest adjusted comparison amount at £94,000 but its ten-week programme fails the stated essential eight-week requirement. B is £95,000 and demonstrates the required scope and programme. B may be the preferred candidate on these facts, subject to the remaining due diligence, terms, approvals and clarification checks. Do not equate a favourable comparison with completed appointment authority.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
5. Resolve qualifications and keep a decision trail
About 7 minutesUse a clarification register with a reference, question, recipient, issue date, response, effect on scope/price/time and status. Ask precise questions. “Please confirm full compliance” is less useful than identifying the excluded testing item and asking for its inclusion, price and programme effect.
Keep material common information consistent across bidders where required by the process. Preserve original and revised returns. If a clarification changes the comparison, record the movement and why. Do not label an unanswered question closed because the recommendation deadline is near.
Review proposed terms as well as technical scope. Payment, design responsibility, insurance, limitations and qualifications can affect the commercial offer. Obtain appropriate technical or legal review where needed. An evaluator’s note should identify the issue and required decision rather than claiming expertise beyond the review scope.
Before recommendation, reconcile the comparison schedule with the latest confirmed responses. A common error is updating the narrative but leaving an old price or exclusion in the table. Check dates and revisions and obtain the required internal review.
Your turn
Draft two precise clarification questions for A’s £8,000 exclusion: one about scope/price and one about delivery. Create a register row showing what evidence would allow closure. Explain how you would preserve a revised tender.
Compare your reasoning
Ask A to identify and price the excluded required item as part of the defined scope, with any qualifications. Ask whether inclusion changes its eight-week programme, resources or lead times. Close only after a clear authorised response has been checked and incorporated into the current comparison. Save the original and revised return with dates/revisions and record the movement; do not overwrite the original offer.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
6. Write the recommendation and control the handover
About 7 minutesLead the report with the decision requested, the preferred offer and the reasons. Attach the comparison, evaluation findings and clarification register. State the scope and price basis, essential requirements, unresolved matters, risks and conditions before award. Explain why alternatives were not preferred using evidence rather than dismissive labels.
For the running example, B at £95,000 may be recommended because it includes the common scope and meets the essential eight-week programme, subject to remaining checks and approvals. C is cheaper on the adjusted comparison but fails the programme requirement. A’s adjusted amount is higher and its exclusion requires resolution. The recommendation should not pretend these are signed contracts.
Separate approval to recommend from authority to appoint. Confirm the final agreed documents, price, programme and qualifications before commitment. Transfer the accepted scope and clarifications into the contract pack and handover; otherwise the reasoning can be lost between procurement and delivery.
Keep the original returns, evaluations, clarifications, approval and final agreed pack. Follow the applicable communication process for award and unsuccessful bidders. A well-reasoned comparison supports the decision; it is not itself an instruction to start work.
Your turn
Write a recommendation of up to 150 words for B using the running facts. Include two conditions before award and identify the documents that must reach the delivery team.
Compare your reasoning
Recommend B subject to approval and verification of the final scope, terms, programme and due diligence. Explain £95,000 against adjusted A £98,000 and C £94,000, with C failing the eight-week requirement. Transfer the accepted tender, drawings/specification, clarified exclusions/inclusions, programme, terms and approval record into the agreed pack. Make clear that appointment requires the authorised process, not merely this report.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
2. Check your understanding
Check your understanding
Allow 8 minutes. Close the lesson notes, answer each question and explain your choice to yourself. Read the feedback, revisit any weak point and try again. These checks support learning; they do not certify professional competence.
Answer notes
- £98,000, with the adjustment identified. Add the stated missing-scope allowance to compare the same scope: £98,000. Preserve the original £90,000 offer and label the adjustment as unconfirmed until properly clarified.
- No; the essential requirement and procurement process must be respected. An essential requirement remains a separate compliance issue. Do not hide it within a score or waive it inconsistently to obtain a preferred result.
- No; authorised approval and the agreed appointment process remain necessary. Recommendation, approval and contractual appointment are distinct steps. Confirm the agreed scope, terms, price and authority before commitment.
3. Complete the independent task
Allow 20 minutes. Use the new facts below to produce the finished output. Try it before opening the model response, then revise your work against every checking criterion.
Your project brief
Compare three fictional private-package tenders and write a conditional recommendation. The stated six-week completion is an essential requirement established before tender.
- Tender X
- £48,000; excludes required testing. Evaluator allowance for testing £4,000, not yet confirmed. Six-week programme stated.
- Tender Y
- £51,000; required scope included; six-week programme supported by the supplied resource plan.
- Tender Z
- £49,500; scope included; eight-week programme.
- Common brief
- Testing included; six-week completion essential. All prices exclude VAT.
- Remaining checks
- Final terms, required due diligence and appointment approval remain outstanding.
Compare with the model response
X is £48,000 submitted and £52,000 for comparison after the unconfirmed £4,000 testing allowance. Y is £51,000 and Z £49,500. Z fails the essential six-week programme on the supplied return. Y is the preferred offer on the stated evidence: complete scope, supported programme and lower price than X’s adjusted comparison.
Record X’s testing price as an evaluator allowance, not an agreed offer. Clarify scope and delivery consistently under the process. Recommend Y subject to final terms, due diligence and authorised approval. Preserve the returns and the reasons for rejecting or not preferring alternatives. Transfer the final agreed scope, price, programme, clarifications and terms to the delivery team.
Check your finished work
Tick a criterion only when your work demonstrates it. If a calculation, source or required check is missing, revisit the relevant lesson and revise the output before using the method on a project.
4. Review and use what you learned
Return to your starting response. Explain what you would now do differently and why. The aim is a reliable method you can repeat, including knowing when information or specialist review is needed.
- Tomorrow, explain submitted price, adjusted comparison and agreed contract sum.
- In a week, redo the comparison with a changed exclusion and state what evidence would change the recommendation.
- For a live procurement, confirm the applicable process and evaluation rules before issuing the tender pack.
Use the blank templates below to practise the record format. Their completed examples have their own stated facts; keep those figures separate from your independent course task.
Tender comparison template
Record omissions, qualifications and evidence for each adjustment. Keep the submitted price distinct from the adjusted comparison price.
Free blank template for your own project. The completed example is shown below. No email address required.
View the completed example
Completed fictional example
Westhaven refurbishment · 14 October 2026 · Version 1.0
Tender comparison template
Scroll across if needed to read the whole record. A dash means no value has been entered.
| Tenderer | Submitted price (£) | Scope additions (£) | Scope deductions (£) | Comparable price (£) | Qualification / evidence | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Builder A | £180,000.00 | £0.00 | £0.00 | £180,000.00 | Includes common schedule SW-01 rev C | Lowest comparable price in this example |
| Builder B | £170,000.00 | £14,000.00 | £0.00 | £184,000.00 | Excludes services; comparable quote Q-S01 £14,000 | £184,000 comparable; clarify programme and quality |
Do not choose solely on the adjusted total. Review competence, scope, programme, payment terms and unresolved risks. All example prices exclude VAT.
This is a foundation for the defined task, not a professional qualification or a substitute for checking the actual contract and project. Use the sources and related resources below to continue learning.