📑
Tender Evaluation Template
A free tender evaluation template for UK construction, with a worked MEAT-scored example for a leisure centre, arithmetic corrections handled properly, and the errors that get an award challenged.
What is a Tender Evaluation Template?
A tender evaluation is the process of assessing and comparing bids received from contractors or subcontractors. The evaluation template provides a structured framework for analysing each tender against consistent criteria, ensuring a fair and transparent selection process. Most public sector projects require a documented evaluation process, and private sector clients increasingly expect formal tender reports.
The point of the document is not to find the cheapest bid. It is to find the best one and be able to prove, later, that you found it fairly.
That second half is what people underestimate. A tender evaluation report is the record that gets produced if the award is challenged, and on a public sector job it may be read by someone whose whole purpose is to find a flaw in it. It needs to show that every bid was scored against criteria that were published before tenders went out, by people who applied them consistently.
The other thing a good evaluation does is stop you comparing things that are not comparable. Four bids for the same package are almost never priced on the same basis. One has excluded something, one has qualified the programme, one has priced a different specification. Normalising those onto a common basis is the actual work. The scoring matrix is just where you write the answer down.
Key Sections to Include
1. Tender Summary - Overview of tenders received, tender period, and any non-compliant bids.
2. Commercial Comparison - Side-by-side pricing comparison normalised to a common basis.
3. Qualifications and Exclusions - Items each tenderer has qualified, excluded, or conditioned.
4. Programme Comparison - Tender programmes compared against the client's required dates.
5. Quality/Technical Scoring - Assessment of methodology, team, experience, and approach.
6. Arithmetic Check - Verification of tender calculations and any errors found.
7. Weighted Scoring Matrix - Combined price and quality scores using the agreed weighting.
8. Recommendation - Recommended tenderer with justification.
THE ORDER MATTERS MORE THAN PEOPLE THINK
Do the arithmetic check before the commercial comparison, not after. If you normalise first and then find a £40,000 addition error, you have to redo the lot.
Do the qualifications review before the scoring. A bid that has excluded the mechanical ventilation is not a cheap bid, it is a different bid, and scoring it on price before you have adjusted for that produces a ranking that is simply wrong.
Score quality before you look at the prices, if the process lets you. On public sector work this is often mandatory and the envelopes are opened separately for exactly this reason. Even where it is not required, knowing a bidder is £200,000 cheaper does something to how generously you read their method statement, and you will not notice it happening.
Want all 13 templates as editable Word docs?
The Construction AI Prompt Pack includes every template as an editable document, plus 50 AI prompts and role cheat sheets.
Get the Pack - £29
Instant download
Free Template
TENDER EVALUATION REPORT Project: [Project Name] Package: [Work Package Description] Tender Return Date: [DD/MM/YYYY] Prepared by: [QS Name] Date: [DD/MM/YYYY] 1. TENDERS RECEIVED | Tenderer | Tender Sum | Compliant | Arithmetic Errors | |----------|-----------|-----------|-------------------| | [Company A] | [Amount] | [Yes/No] | [Amount/None] | | [Company B] | [Amount] | [Yes/No] | [Amount/None] | | [Company C] | [Amount] | [Yes/No] | [Amount/None] | 2. COMMERCIAL COMPARISON | Item | Company A | Company B | Company C | |------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Base Tender Sum | [Amount] | [Amount] | [Amount] | | Adjustments for Qualifications | [Amount] | [Amount] | [Amount] | | Arithmetic Corrections | [Amount] | [Amount] | [Amount] | | ADJUSTED TENDER SUM | [Amount] | [Amount] | [Amount] | 3. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS | Tenderer | Qualifications/Exclusions | Cost Impact | |----------|--------------------------|-------------| | [Company A] | [List items] | [Amount] | | [Company B] | [List items] | [Amount] | | [Company C] | [List items] | [Amount] | 4. PROGRAMME | Tenderer | Start Date | Completion | Duration | Meets Requirement | |----------|-----------|------------|----------|-------------------| | [Company A] | [Date] | [Date] | [Weeks] | [Yes/No] | 5. QUALITY/TECHNICAL SCORING (Weighted [X]%) | Criteria | Weight | Co. A | Co. B | Co. C | |----------|--------|-------|-------|-------| | Methodology | [%] | [/10] | [/10] | [/10] | | Experience | [%] | [/10] | [/10] | [/10] | | Team | [%] | [/10] | [/10] | [/10] | | Programme | [%] | [/10] | [/10] | [/10] | 6. WEIGHTED SCORING MATRIX | Criteria | Weight | Co. A Score | Co. B Score | Co. C Score | |----------|--------|------------|------------|------------| | Price | [X]% | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | | Quality | [X]% | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | | TOTAL | 100% | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | 7. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Tenderer: [Company Name] Tender Sum: [Amount] Justification: [Reasons for recommendation] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WORKED EXAMPLE: MAIN CONTRACT, LEISURE CENTRE REFURBISHMENT Four returns on a public sector job, evaluated 60 percent price and 40 percent quality. This is the shape where the cheapest bid does not win and you have to be able to say why. TENDER EVALUATION REPORT Project: Frome Leisure Centre, Pool Hall and Changing Refurbishment Package: Main contract, JCT Intermediate 2016 with quantities Client: Mendip District Council Tender Return Date: 26/06/2026 Prepared by: O. Hagger MRICS Date: 10/07/2026 Evaluation basis: MEAT, 60% price / 40% quality, as published in the ITT dated 15/05/2026 1. TENDERS RECEIVED | Tenderer | Tender Sum | Compliant | Arithmetic Errors | |----------|-----------|-----------|-------------------| | Bathwick Construction | £2,845,000 | Yes | None | | Kestrel Build Ltd | £2,610,000 | Yes | +£38,400 (extension error, page 14) | | Somer Valley Contractors | £2,978,000 | Yes | None | | Hartland Group | £2,402,000 | No | Not checked | Hartland Group's return was received 41 minutes after the deadline stated in the ITT. In accordance with the ITT tender rules, the bid was not opened and is excluded from evaluation. Hartland were notified on 26/06/2026. This is recorded here because a rejected low bid is exactly the thing that gets questioned later. 2. ARITHMETIC CHECK Kestrel Build's bill contains an extension error in the pool hall tiling section: 1,240 m2 at £84/m2 extended as £65,760 rather than £104,160, understating by £38,400. In accordance with the ITT, Kestrel were given the option to confirm or withdraw their tender. On 02/07/2026 Kestrel confirmed the corrected sum of £2,648,400 and confirmed the rate stands. Corrected figure carried forward. 3. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS | Tenderer | Qualifications/Exclusions | Cost Impact | |----------|--------------------------|-------------| | Bathwick | None | £0 | | Kestrel | Excludes asbestos removal from plant room ceiling void (ITT required it, R&D survey issued with the ITT identified ACMs) | +£46,000 | | Somer Valley | Assumes pool tank drain-down by client. ITT allocated this to the contractor | +£12,500 | 4. COMMERCIAL COMPARISON | Item | Bathwick | Kestrel | Somer Valley | |------|----------|---------|--------------| | Base Tender Sum | £2,845,000 | £2,610,000 | £2,978,000 | | Arithmetic Corrections | £0 | +£38,400 | £0 | | Adjustments for Qualifications | £0 | +£46,000 | +£12,500 | | ADJUSTED TENDER SUM | £2,845,000 | £2,694,400 | £2,990,500 | Kestrel remains the lowest after adjustment, but the gap to Bathwick has narrowed from £235,000 to £150,600. That movement is the entire reason this section exists. 5. PROGRAMME | Tenderer | Start | Completion | Duration | Meets Requirement | |----------|-------|------------|----------|-------------------| | Bathwick | 07/09/26 | 26/03/27 | 29 weeks | Yes | | Kestrel | 07/09/26 | 07/05/27 | 35 weeks | No, 6 weeks beyond required date | | Somer Valley | 07/09/26 | 19/03/27 | 28 weeks | Yes | The ITT required completion by 02/04/2027 to reopen for the Easter holidays. Kestrel's programme misses it by six weeks, which means a full closed season. 6. QUALITY SCORING (40%, scored before prices were opened) | Criteria | Weight | Bathwick | Kestrel | Somer Valley | |----------|--------|----------|---------|--------------| | Methodology (phasing while centre stays partly open) | 15% | 8/10 | 5/10 | 8/10 | | Relevant experience (wet leisure) | 10% | 9/10 | 4/10 | 7/10 | | Team | 8% | 7/10 | 6/10 | 8/10 | | Programme credibility | 7% | 8/10 | 5/10 | 7/10 | Kestrel's methodology scored 5 because it assumes a full closure, which the ITT ruled out. The gym and studio must stay open throughout. Their wet leisure experience score of 4 reflects one comparable project in five years against Bathwick's six. 7. WEIGHTED SCORING MATRIX Price scored using: (lowest adjusted sum / this bid) x 60. | Criteria | Weight | Bathwick | Kestrel | Somer Valley | |----------|--------|----------|---------|--------------| | Price | 60% | 56.8 | 60.0 | 54.1 | | Quality | 40% | 32.2 | 19.8 | 30.3 | | TOTAL | 100% | 89.0 | 79.8 | 84.4 | 8. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Tenderer: Bathwick Construction Tender Sum: £2,845,000 Score: 89.0 / 100 Justification: Bathwick score highest overall on the published 60/40 basis. Although Kestrel's adjusted sum is £150,600 lower and they take the maximum price score, they score 19.8 of 40 on quality against Bathwick's 32.2. The gap is driven by two things the evaluation panel considered material: a methodology that assumes a full closure the ITT expressly excluded, and a programme that misses the required completion date by six weeks, which would cost the council a further closed season and the associated income. Somer Valley scored well on quality but are £145,500 above Bathwick with no offsetting advantage. Recommend award to Bathwick Construction, subject to the standing period and to confirmation of the pool tank drain-down allowance at pre-contract meeting. Panel: O. Hagger (QS), R. Tozer (Council Property Services), S. Nadeem (Leisure Operations). Scored independently on 03/07/2026, moderated 08/07/2026. Individual score sheets retained. That last paragraph is not padding. If Kestrel challenge this award, the moderation record and the individual score sheets are the evidence that the process was applied as published. Without them the report is one person's opinion.
Want more templates like this?
Get new AI workflows and construction templates delivered weekly. Free.
Subscribe Free
No spam ever.
When Do You Need This?
After tender returns are received for any construction work package. When comparing subcontractor quotations. When the client requires a formal tender report for approval. On public sector projects where transparent evaluation is mandatory.
WHEN THIS IS THE WRONG DOCUMENT
For a single quotation, this is overkill. If you are pricing a £4,000 drainage repair off one quote, you do not need a weighted scoring matrix. You need a phone call and a purchase order. Using a formal evaluation on a job that does not warrant it trains everyone to treat the document as a rubber stamp, and then it gets treated that way on the job that does warrant it.
For a negotiated or single-source award, the honest document is a value-for-money justification, not an evaluation. Do not stage a comparison between one real bid and two you did not seriously consider. That is worse than no process, because it creates a record that says you ran a competition when you did not.
For a two-stage design and build appointment, the first stage is not really a price competition and evaluating it as one misses the point. At stage one you are buying a team, a preliminaries rate and an overhead and profit percentage, against a scope that is not yet fixed. Score it on the things that are actually fixed, and be explicit that the second stage is where the number gets tested.
And where the client has already decided who they want, this template will not save you. An evaluation written to reach a predetermined answer is visible from a mile away, usually because the quality scores do all the work and none of them are evidenced. If the client wants a particular contractor, the honest route is a negotiated appointment with a proper justification, not a competition with a thumb on the scale.
Who Uses This Template?
Quantity Surveyors prepare the evaluation. Project Managers review and approve. Clients make the final award decision. Procurement Managers oversee the process on larger projects.
On public sector work an evaluation panel usually scores the quality submissions independently before the panel moderates to an agreed score. Keep the individual sheets. The moderation record is the part that stands up if the award is challenged, and it is the part people throw away.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What does MEAT actually mean, and is it still used after Brexit?
MEAT is Most Economically Advantageous Tender: the award goes to the best combination of price and quality, not the lowest price. Under the Procurement Act 2023, which replaced the old EU-derived regime for most UK public contracts, the language shifted to Most Advantageous Tender, MAT, which is a deliberate nudge away from treating price as the default. In practice the mechanics are the same: publish your criteria and weightings in the ITT, apply them, record it. What changed is the emphasis, not the method. Check which regime and which regulations apply to your specific contract, because the transition matters and the thresholds move.
How should price be scored against quality?
Publish the formula in the ITT and then use it, whatever it is. The common approach is lowest-price-gets-full-marks with others scored pro rata, which is what the worked example above uses. Weightings vary by what you are buying: 60/40 or 70/30 price to quality on a straightforward refurbishment, moving towards 50/50 or beyond where design, phasing or disruption really matter. What you must not do is decide the weighting after you have seen the bids. That is the single fastest way to lose a challenge.
What do I do about an arithmetic error in a tender?
Whatever your ITT says, which is why the ITT needs to say. The two standard options are to let the tenderer confirm or withdraw their tender at the original sum, or to let them correct the error. Both are legitimate. What is not legitimate is choosing between them after you have seen whether the correction helps or hurts your preferred bidder. Notify the tenderer in writing, get their response in writing, and put both in the report as the worked example does.
Can I use AI to compare tenders?
For the mechanical parts, yes and it is genuinely useful: pulling exclusions out of four covering letters, spotting where one bid has priced a different quantity, building the normalisation table. For the scoring, no. Quality scoring on a public contract has to be done by the named panel against published criteria, and an AI score is not a scored bid, it is an unaccountable number. Use it to prepare the comparison and free the panel up to do the judging.
What if the lowest bid is not compliant?
Deal with the compliance question first and separately, and write down what you did. Either the bid is non-compliant and excluded, in which case say so and say why, or the non-compliance is something you adjust for and score, in which case adjust and score it. The worked example does both: Hartland excluded for lateness, Kestrel's asbestos exclusion priced back in at £46,000. What you cannot do is quietly ignore a cheap non-compliant bid and hope nobody asks.
Generate This with AI
AI can help analyse tender returns by normalising pricing, identifying qualifications, and flagging anomalies. Provide the AI with the tender breakdown from each bidder and it will produce a structured comparison highlighting key differences. Always verify the analysis manually before making award recommendations.
The highest-value use is the boring one. Paste in four covering letters and four sets of qualifications and ask it to produce one table listing every qualification, exclusion and assumption by bidder, flagging anything that appears in one bid but not the others. That last part is the trick. The exclusion that only one bidder mentions is usually the one that matters, because it means either they have spotted something the others missed, or they are trying to win on a lower number.
THREE MISTAKES THAT WRECK AN AI-ASSISTED EVALUATION
Letting it score. It will produce a weighted matrix with confident numbers and a recommendation, and none of it is defensible. On public sector work the panel scores, against published criteria, and the record has to show that. An AI-generated quality score in an evaluation report is a gift to anyone challenging the award.
Trusting the normalisation arithmetic. Same warning as any AI table: it predicts what a sum looks like rather than adding up. In the worked example above, the adjusted tender sums have to reconcile exactly to base plus corrections plus adjustments. Check every row by hand. A normalisation table that is £2,000 out ranks bids wrongly and nobody spots it because the table looks immaculate.
Feeding it confidential bids without thinking. Tender sums are commercially sensitive and you usually hold them under an ITT that says so. Before pasting four bidders' pricing into an AI tool, check the tool's data handling, check your client's rules, and check your own. On public sector work assume the whole process may be scrutinised, and "we uploaded the bids to a chatbot" is not a sentence you want to have to say.
Template Details
- Cost
- Free
- Format
- Copy-paste ready
- Industry
- Construction
Related AI Workflows
Want to generate this document automatically with AI? Check our AI workflows for step-by-step prompts.
All 13 Templates
Get every template as a Word doc
Download all 13 construction templates as editable Word documents. Fill in your project details and submit. No formatting needed.
£29one-time
Get the Prompt PackInstant download. Editable files.
Try our software
Want these prompts pre-built?
AI Construction Copilot has all these workflows ready to run — no copy-pasting needed. Built specifically for construction professionals.
Try FreeFree newsletter
Get AI Tips Weekly
New construction AI workflows, prompts, and templates delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe FreeNo spam. Unsubscribe anytime.