Prepared for
Brackenfield Building Contractors Ltd fictional
Sample tender analysis · construction, one-off contract
Highways depot extension & refurbishment — single-tender contract
1Opportunity summary
The council is procuring a single, self-contained construction project: a steel-frame extension to its highways depot workshop plus internal refurbishment of the existing building (new mess/welfare facilities, upgraded vehicle bays). This is not a framework — it's a one-off contract under the JCT Intermediate Building Contract 2016, single-stage tender. Award is 50% quality / 40% price / 10% social value, with a mandatory site visit before submission — non-attendance disqualifies a bid outright.
Brackenfield is a 14-person general building contractor with £1.4m turnover, based 20 minutes from the site, with recent experience on comparable local-authority depot and workshop projects. The core capability fit is strong; one financial-standing evidence item needs resolving before submission (see §4).
2Deadline register
| Date | Time | Event | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | — | Notice published | 16 working days to submission — a tight, typical window (see the construction guide's own deadline data) |
| Day 4 | 10:00 | Mandatory site visit | Non-attendance = automatic disqualification; book within 24h of publication, slots fill fast |
| Day 9 | 17:00 | Clarification questions close | Ask about the parent-company-guarantee alternative (§4) before this date |
| Day 16 | 12:00 | Submission deadline | Portal upload — allow 2h buffer; late = rejected, no exceptions |
| w/c +5 weeks | — | Award decision expected | Standstill period follows |
| +10 weeks | — | Site possession / mobilisation | CDM Principal Contractor notice due 2 weeks prior |
| +10 weeks +26 | — | Practical completion (target) | 26-week programme; defects liability period 12 months follows |
3Compliance matrix — mandatory requirements
| Ref | Mandatory requirement | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | Public & employer's liability insurance ≥ £10m | SQ 4.1 | Evidence supplied — policy doc, expires Apr 2027 |
| M2 | CDM 2015 Principal Contractor competency statement | SQ 5.4 | Evidence supplied — current H&S policy + named competent person |
| M3 | SSIP health & safety accreditation | SQ 5.1 | Evidence supplied — CHAS Elite, current |
| M4 | Financial standing: parent company guarantee or 10% retention bond | SQ 3.4 | Confirmation required — Brackenfield has no parent company; retention-bond route needs a broker quote before pricing |
| M5 | Collateral warranties for any sub-contractor design portion (steel frame) | Spec 6.2 | Derived from evidence — steel sub-contractor's standard warranty template held; needs checking against this contract's specific beneficiary list |
| M6 | 3 comparable projects, similar scope/value, last 5 years | SQ 7.1 | Evidence supplied — 2 council depot/workshop jobs + 1 comparable commercial extension, all with references |
| M7 | Considerate Constructors Scheme registration (site-specific) | Spec 8.1 | Gap — not currently registered; registration is a same-week process, must complete before mobilisation, not before submission |
4Evidence-gap report
Financial standing route (M4) Customer confirmation required
Brackenfield is independently owned — no parent company exists to guarantee the works, so the retention-bond route is the only option. A bond broker quote takes 2-3 working days to obtain and must be priced into the tender sum before submission. Start this today; it is the single item standing between "bid" and "bid, ready".
Collateral warranty beneficiaries (M5) Confirmation required
The steel sub-contractor's standard warranty template exists but names a generic beneficiary list. This spec requires warranties running to the council and its funding partner by name — a two-line amendment, but it must be agreed with the sub-contractor before the tender is priced, not after award.
Considerate Constructors Scheme (M7) Gap — fixable, but not before submission
Registration takes about a week and this spec only requires it before site possession (10 weeks out), not before submission — so this does not block the bid itself. Flagged here so it isn't forgotten between award and mobilisation, which is exactly the kind of post-award gap that causes late starts.
Comparable project references (M6) Genuinely strong
Two directly comparable council depot/workshop projects, delivered on time, with named referees willing to be contacted (confirmed). This is the strongest part of the bid and should be foregrounded in the quality-question answers, not buried in an appendix.
5Bid / no-bid assessment
| Factor | Weight | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility (mandatories met/fixable) | 30 | 24 | All pass or fixable in the window; retention-bond quote is the one hard dependency |
| Deliverability (capacity, geography) | 25 | 20 | 26-week programme fits current pipeline; 20-minute site proximity is a genuine advantage on a mandatory-visit tender |
| Competitiveness (quality scoring) | 25 | 18 | Two directly comparable references are a real differentiator; expect 4-6 bidders on a project this size |
| Commercial attractiveness | 20 | 14 | £480k is comfortably within Brackenfield's SME-winnable band; margin depends on the bond cost landing as priced |
| Total | 100 | 76 | BID — conditional on the retention-bond quote coming back this week |
Recommendation
Bid — but get the bond broker on the phone today.
Nothing here is a hard block. The 16-working-day window is unforgiving, and the one item genuinely off the critical path today (M4) is also the one that changes the tender sum — sequence it first, not last.
6Red-team notes — where this bid would lose marks
Q2 (programme & sequencing): a generic 26-week Gantt scores poorly against a spec that names specific plant-access constraints around the live depot. Sequence the answer around keeping the depot operational during works, not just the build itself.
Q4 (risk management): the mandatory-site-visit spec exists because the council had access issues on a previous contract — reference what was actually seen on the visit, not a boilerplate risk register.
Pricing schedule: the bond premium and any warranty-amendment costs must be in the tender sum, not assumed as post-award extras — a price that excludes them will look cheaper on paper and then trigger a "please confirm this is inclusive" clarification that erodes trust.
7Submission plan (work-back)
| Day 1-2 | Book the mandatory site visit · instruct the bond broker · request the amended collateral warranty from the steel sub-contractor |
| Day 3-4 | Attend site visit · start method statement drafts against what was actually seen · chase bond quote |
| Day 5-9 | Draft quality answers Q1-Q4 · submit clarification on financial-standing route · finalise comparable-project write-ups |
| Day 10-13 | Price the tender sum once the bond quote lands · internal red-team review against evaluation criteria |
| Day 14-16 | Final assembly · director sign-off · upload complete pack a day early |
This is what £99 buys — for a real tender
Send us a live tender and get this exact analysis for your business — evidence-checked and prepared from the information you provide — within two working days of us receiving your documents. If the honest answer is "don't bid", we'll say so.
Request your founding analysis →Illustrative sample. "Brackenfield Building Contractors Ltd", the council and all dates, values and documents are fictional; the structure mirrors requirements commonly seen in UK one-off local-authority construction contracts. Not legal, financial or procurement advice; no output guarantees any contract award.