Builder Tender Evaluation Template
A structured framework for evaluating construction tenders objectively. Score builders on price, program, capability, risk, and track record.
Download the Tender Evaluation Template
Get the full weighted scoring framework as a free PDF.
Download as PDF
Enter your details to download the complete Builder Tender Evaluation Template as a printable PDF.
Why You Need a Structured Tender Evaluation
Selecting a builder is a significant board decision. A structured process helps directors compare the commercial offer, delivery plan, team, qualifications, and risks on the same basis.
This template gives your board an objective, defensible framework for comparing tenders across the criteria that actually matter: price, program, methodology, capability, risk management, and track record.
Related reading: our Consultant & Builder Procurement service, and Tender Evaluation: How We Choose the Right Contractor.
The Tender Evaluation Process
Follow these seven steps to run a transparent, defensible evaluation process.
- 1Establish evaluation criteria and weightings (documented, approved by board before tenders received)
- 2Appoint tender evaluation panel (project manager, quantity surveyor, board representative)
- 3Issue the same tender package and clarification process to the approved shortlist
- 4Evaluate each tender against established criteria
- 5Score and rank all submissions
- 6Present recommendation to board with full scoring rationale
- 7Negotiate contract terms with recommended builder
Illustrative Weightings
The example below totals 100%. Approve the actual criteria, weightings, scoring definitions, conflicts process, and minimum requirements before tenders are opened. Adjust them to the project and procurement strategy.
| Criterion | Weighting | Score Range |
|---|---|---|
Price | 30% | 1-10 |
Program | 20% | 1-10 |
Capability & Methodology | 20% | 1-10 |
Risk Management | 20% | 1-10 |
References | 10% | 1-10 |
Define what evidence earns each score before evaluation. Panel members should score independently, record reasons, then moderate differences against the published rubric. The weighted result supports judgment; it does not replace due diligence or resolve a material contract departure.
1. Price Assessment (30% in this example)
Assess price in context. Reconcile every tender to the same scope, exclusions, qualifications, provisional sums, rates, program, and contract departures before comparing totals.
Lump Sum Price Competitiveness
Compare the adjusted tender sum with the quantity surveyor’s (QS) estimate and the other conforming bids. Investigate material differences rather than assigning an automatic score from percentage bands.
- Confirm the tender covers the same drawings, specifications, schedules, and addenda
- Normalise exclusions, qualifications, alternates, and proposed departures
- Reconcile trade-level differences against the QS estimate
- Test rates, allowances, and assumptions that could affect later adjustments
- Record each clarification and its effect on the evaluated price
Key question: Is this price realistic for the scope? Can the builder remain financially viable at this price?
Provisional Sums Justification
Provisional sums are estimates for work that cannot be fully defined at tender stage. They should be itemised, adequately scoped, and not excessive.
Items to review:
- Scope definition, quantity basis, inclusions, exclusions, and supporting quotations
- Who controls selection, instruction, and adjustment of each allowance
- Whether comparable tenderers have allowed for the same risk
Score against the approved rubric: stronger submissions make the allowance transparent and give the board a credible basis for understanding the remaining exposure.
Preliminaries Breakdown
Preliminaries cover site management, temporary works, and administration. Compare the resourcing, duration assumptions, temporary works, staging, and operational controls behind the total. They should be transparent and itemised.
Payment Terms
Compare the proposed payment schedule, evidence required for claims, off-site materials, security, retention, set-off, and release mechanisms with the tender conditions and legal advice.
Illustrative price sub-weighting:
(Lump sum x 40%) + (Provisional sums x 30%) + (Preliminaries x 20%) + (Payment terms x 10%)
2. Program Assessment (20% in this example)
The construction program is not just about speed. A realistic program with contingency built in is far more valuable than an optimistic timeline that slips within the first month.
Schedule Realism
Is the programmed completion date realistic? Does it include weather allowances, coordination float, and contingency?
- Logic links design releases, approvals, procurement, staging, construction, commissioning, and handover
- Durations and calendars are supported by the proposed methodology and resources
- Long-lead decisions and club-supplied information have named due dates
- Float, allowances, and recovery actions are visible rather than hidden in a headline completion date
Staging and Phasing Methodology
For multi-stage projects: Is the phasing strategy well-developed? Is operational continuity maintained? Has the builder provided a temporary facilities strategy?
Critical Path and Key Milestones
Does the builder identify the critical path — the connected tasks that determine the finish date — and show the logic, prerequisites, float, and responsible party for each key milestone? Record any unsupported assumption.
Schedule Risk Management
Has the builder included a risk register in their submission? Are mitigation strategies identified for schedule risks? Check whether owners, actions, and trigger dates align with the submitted program.
Long-Lead Item Procurement
For critical items such as gaming machines, lifts, HVAC systems, and kitchen equipment: has the builder provided a detailed procurement schedule with early ordering commitments?
Illustrative program sub-weighting:
(Realism x 30%) + (Staging x 20%) + (Critical path x 20%) + (Risk mgmt x 15%) + (Long-lead procurement x 15%)
3. Capability & Methodology (20% in this example)
You are not just hiring a company — you are hiring a team. The project manager, site manager, and supervisors who will actually run your project matter more than the company name on the letterhead.
Project Manager Experience
Does the proposed PM have relevant experience with club/hospitality projects of similar scale and complexity?
- Named role, availability, authority, and time commitment are clear
- Examples show comparable staging, operational continuity, and stakeholder complexity
- The proposed person explains how lessons from those projects apply here
- Interview answers are consistent with the written methodology and program
Ask: Will this PM remain on your project for its full duration? Are they supported by an adequate team?
Site Management Team
Is there a full-time site manager with hospitality/club experience? Is the supervision team adequately resourced for the scale of works?
Relevant Project Experience
Look for work with comparable scope, staging, live operations, specialist services, and stakeholder complexity. Relevance matters more than a simple project count or value threshold.
- Verify the proposed team’s role on each example, not only the company’s involvement
- Compare the reference project’s scope, procurement model, staging, and operational constraints
- Ask what changed during delivery and how the team responded
- Check whether the nominated referees worked directly with the proposed personnel
Current Workload and Capacity
Is your project the builder’s primary focus, or are they over-committed? Ask for a current workload schedule, named allocations, known mobilisation dates, and the escalation plan if another project moves.
Team Continuity Commitment
Does the builder commit key team members for the full project duration? Is there a documented replacement protocol if key staff depart?
Illustrative capability sub-weighting:
(PM experience x 25%) + (Site management x 20%) + (Project experience x 30%) + (Current workload x 15%) + (Team continuity x 10%)
4. Risk Assessment (20% in this example)
How risk is allocated in the contract determines who pays when things go wrong. The right contract structure protects the club from cost blowouts while keeping the builder incentivised to deliver.
Contract Type and Risk Allocation
Compare each tenderer’s departures from the proposed contract and test whether the allocation matches the chosen procurement model. Refer material legal and insurance issues to the club’s advisers before making a recommendation.
Variation Procedure and Dispute Resolution
Is there a detailed variation procedure with agreed rate schedules? How are disputes resolved? A contract that is silent on variation pricing leaves a material issue unresolved.
Insurance and Bank Guarantees
Check proposed insurance and security against the tender conditions, project risks, contract form, and current advice. Record qualifications, expiry dates, exclusions, providers, and evidence still required.
- Tender response matches the requested insurance and security schedule
- Certificates and proposed wording are supplied or clearly listed as conditions
- Departures are priced, reviewed, and allocated to an owner for resolution
Defects Liability and Rectification
Compare the defects period, notification process, rectification obligations, access arrangements, security release, and close-out requirements with the tender conditions. Legal advice should resolve any material departure.
Liquidated Damages for Delay
Check the tenderer’s response to the proposed delay regime, extensions of time, notice requirements, milestones, and any liquidated damages. Confirm the commercial and legal basis with the club’s advisers; do not treat one clause as a proxy for overall program credibility.
Illustrative risk sub-weighting:
(Contract type x 20%) + (Variation procedure x 20%) + (Insurance x 20%) + (Defects liability x 20%) + (Payment terms x 10%) + (Liquidated damages x 10%)
5. References and Track Record (10% in this example)
Past performance provides useful evidence when the work and team are genuinely comparable. Do not just accept a list of references — call them, and ask specific questions about delivery, quality, and how disputes were handled.
Reference Projects
Contact references from similar projects. Were they completed on time and on budget? Were quality outcomes satisfactory? Record who provided the reference, their role, and whether they worked with the proposed project team.
Defect and Claims History
Has the builder had significant defect issues or claims on past projects? Ask for context, outcome, and lessons learned; a disclosed issue is not automatically evidence of poor performance.
Financial Stability
Check ASIC records, credit rating, and bank references. Are audited financials available? Is the balance sheet strong with positive cash flow? Use appropriately qualified advice to assess financial capacity and confidentiality requirements.
Safety and Compliance Record
Does the builder have a strong safety record with regular audits? Safety concerns or compliance issues are a serious concern. Review evidence relevant to the proposed work rather than relying on awards or a general assurance.
Illustrative references sub-weighting:
(References x 40%) + (Defects/claims x 30%) + (Financial stability x 20%) + (Safety record x 10%)
Overall Tender Scoring Example
Combine the weighted category scores to produce a single overall tender score. This hypothetical example demonstrates the maths.
| Criterion | Weighting | Score | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 30% | 7.5 | 2.25 |
| Program | 20% | 8.0 | 1.60 |
| Capability & Methodology | 20% | 7.0 | 1.40 |
| Risk Management | 20% | 8.5 | 1.70 |
| References | 10% | 8.0 | 0.80 |
| TOTAL | 100% | 7.75/10 |
Calculation: (7.5 × 30%) + (8.0 × 20%) + (7.0 × 20%) + (8.5 × 20%) + (8.0 × 10%) = 7.75 out of 10.
What to Include in the Board Report
Your tender evaluation report is the document the board will use to approve the builder. It should be comprehensive, transparent, and defensible.
Tender Summary
Number of tenders received, pricing range (low to high), schedule range, and key variances identified.
Evaluation Matrix
Full scoring for each builder on each criterion. Rankings with overall scores (e.g., Tender 1: 7.9/10, Tender 2: 7.5/10).
Recommendation
Recommended builder with justification: competitive price, realistic schedule, proven track record, strong risk management.
Tender Risk Analysis
Concerns identified for each builder (e.g., limited club experience, aggressive schedule) and mitigation if recommended builder is selected.
Contract Negotiation Items
Any contract terms to be negotiated before execution. Do not sign until these are resolved.
Board Approval Resolution
Board approves preferred builder conditional on contract finalisation. PM authorised to negotiate within pre-approved parameters.
Red Flags to Watch For
Any of these should trigger further investigation before proceeding. Their significance depends on the tender conditions, project risks, and advice available to the club.
Unrealistic Schedule
The completion date is not supported by logic, resources, procurement dates, approvals, staging, or clear assumptions.
Unrealistic Price
A material difference from the QS estimate or other tenders is not explained after scope and qualifications are reconciled.
Vague Methodology
The submission does not explain how the team will manage this site, staging plan, live operations, and key dependencies.
Inadequate Insurance
The response does not meet the project-specific insurance schedule, contains material exclusions, or lacks supporting evidence.
Security Departure
The tenderer qualifies the requested security, retention, release, or defects arrangements without a clear alternative.
Excessive Provisional Sums
Allowances are material, poorly defined, or inconsistent across tenders, leaving the board unable to compare likely outturn cost.
No Variation Procedure
The proposed contract does not clearly explain how changes will be instructed, priced, assessed, and approved.
Team Turnover Risk
Key personnel not committed for the project duration. No replacement protocol documented.
Financial Concerns
Builder financials unavailable or showing financial distress. Check ASIC records and credit ratings.
Poor References
References reluctant to recommend, or mentioning quality and schedule issues on past projects.
Tender Evaluation Best Practices
Follow these principles to ensure your evaluation is fair, transparent, and defensible.
Transparency
Criteria and weightings established before tenders are received — not adjusted after to favour a preferred builder.
Independence
Evaluation panel is independent with no conflicts of interest. PM is not related to the preferred builder.
Documentation
All scoring documented with notes justifying each score. Full audit trail for board review.
Like-for-Like
Tenders compared on the same scope, same contract terms. Apples to apples.
Risk-Based
Lowest price does not automatically win if there are significant risks: underbidding, inexperienced team, inadequate insurance.
Due Diligence
ASIC search, credit check, and bank references on the recommended builder before contract execution.
Alternative Tender Approaches
Different procurement methods suit different project types. Here are four approaches a club may consider with its project and legal advisers.
Design and Construct (D&C)
The contractor takes responsibility for completing design and construction under the agreed contract. Design control, price certainty, and risk depend on the brief, design status, and departures.
Traditional (Design-Bid-Build)
The club’s consultants develop the design before builders tender. This can support design control and like-for-like pricing when the documents are sufficiently complete.
Staged Tender
A contractor is engaged while parts of the design or package remain open. Earlier involvement can help planning, but unresolved scope and pricing need clear controls.
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
The parties agree a maximum-price mechanism, including what is included, how changes are treated, and whether savings are shared. The drafting and open-book controls matter.
Choose the approach deliberately:
Compare how much design is complete, who can best manage the remaining risk, when the club needs price certainty, whether early contractor input is valuable, and how live operations affect staging. Record why the selected approach fits this project before preparing the tender.
Download as PDF
Enter your details to download the complete Builder Tender Evaluation Template as a printable PDF.
More Free Resources
Every stage of a club redevelopment has its own checklist. Here are the other four.
Club Redevelopment Risk Checklist
25 practical risk checks covering budgets, governance, planning, construction and club operations, with actions to discuss with your project team.
Club Capital Works Budget Template
Cost categories, practical estimating advice and an illustrative worked budget to help your board understand the full project cost.
15 Questions Every Director Should Ask
15 questions to help directors assess the project brief, budget, risks and delivery plan, with evidence to request before making a decision.
Club Redevelopment Timeline Guide
A guide to project phases, key dependencies and board decisions, helping you understand what shapes the programme from feasibility to opening.
Need Help Evaluating Tenders?
We can help your board establish the evaluation plan, compare submissions, document the recommendation, and coordinate contract clarifications with the club’s advisers.