Analyse and Compare Tender Returns
Evaluate multiple tender submissions and generate a structured recommendation report for your client.
Editor: Owen HaggerLast updated
Overview
Want more templates like this?
Get new AI workflows and construction templates delivered weekly. Free.
No spam ever.
Prompt
You are an experienced Quantity Surveyor evaluating tender returns. Analyse the following tender submissions and produce a Tender Evaluation Report: Project: [PROJECT NAME] Tender Package: [PACKAGE, e.g., M&E Installation] Pre-Tender Estimate: [PTE, e.g., £1.8M] Number of Returns: [NUMBER] Tenderer Details: - Tenderer A: [Name], Price: [£X], Programme: [X weeks], Qualifications: [list any] - Tenderer B: [Name], Price: [£X], Programme: [X weeks], Qualifications: [list any] - Tenderer C: [Name], Price: [£X], Programme: [X weeks], Qualifications: [list any] Produce a report with: 1. Tender Summary Table (ranked by price) 2. Arithmetic Check Notes 3. Qualifications & Exclusions Analysis 4. Commercial Risk Assessment for each tenderer 5. Programme Comparison 6. Recommendation with clear justification Use professional QS language. Highlight any tenderer qualifications that present commercial risk.
Typical result
~6hby hand~2h 30mwith AI
A cautious typical estimate, including the time to gather the inputs and check the output. It varies with the job.
What it replaces: Building the tender comparison and writing the recommendation report from scratch.
What you still check
- Scores and weightings match the published evaluation criteria
- Every bidder's qualifications are captured and priced
- The recommendation is your judgement, backed by the comparison
Use Case
When not to use it
Don't let the tool choose the winner. It lines up the bids and highlights the differences; the award decision is yours and should follow the evaluation method you set out in the tender.
Be careful on public sector work, where the evaluation has to follow the published criteria and the rules that apply to the procurement. The workflow helps you organise the evidence, not change the method.
Common mistakes
- Comparing headline prices without adding back items one bidder has excluded.
- Missing qualifications buried in covering letters or the small print of a quote.
- Scoring quality questions differently from the published weightings.
- Ignoring programme, resources and track record because the cheapest price looks attractive.
- Not recording why the recommendation was made, which matters if a bidder asks for feedback.
Frequently asked questions
- Can AI score tenders?
- It can help apply your scoring criteria consistently and show its reasoning, but you should review every score and the final recommendation.
- How do I compare bids like for like?
- Normalise them: list every exclusion and qualification, put a value on each one, and add it back so all the totals cover the same scope.
- What should the tender report include?
- A summary of each bid, the normalised comparison, scores against the criteria, the risks and qualifications, and a clear recommendation with reasons.
- Does this work for public sector tenders?
- The structure helps, but the evaluation must follow the published criteria and procurement rules. Take advice if you're unsure what applies.
Get AI Tips Weekly
New construction AI workflows, prompts, and templates delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe FreeNo spam. Unsubscribe anytime.