Prepared for
Calder Electrical Services Ltd fictional
Sample tender analysis · electrical
The buyer is letting a four-year framework for electrical safety testing and remedial works across its housing stock, split into four geographic/size lots. Suppliers may bid for up to two lots. Award is 60% quality / 30% price / 10% social value. Quality is scored on five method-statement questions (word-limited), so a small, well-evidenced bidder can genuinely compete with nationals — price alone won't win it.
Why Lot 2: its annual value (~£150k) sits comfortably under the financial-standing cap given Calder's £680k turnover, the patch is within 40 minutes of the depot, and the volume profile (planned EICR programme with measured-term remedials) matches Calder's current mix of work.
| Date | Time | Event | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mon 10 Aug 2026 | — | Portal registration & document download | Register early — portal approval can take 24–48h |
| Fri 21 Aug 2026 | 17:00 | Clarification questions close | Ask about equivalent-QMS acceptance (see M3) before this date |
| Wed 26 Aug 2026 | — | Buyer clarification answers published | Re-check compliance matrix against answers |
| Tue 8 Sep 2026 | 12:00 | Submission deadline | Portal upload — allow 2h buffer; late = rejected, no exceptions |
| w/c 5 Oct 2026 | — | Award decision expected | Standstill period follows |
| 1 Dec 2026 | — | Framework start | Mobilisation evidence due 2 weeks prior |
| Ref | Mandatory requirement | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | Public liability insurance ≥ £10m | SQ 4.1 | Evidence supplied — policy doc, expires Mar 2027 |
| M2 | Employer's liability ≥ £10m | SQ 4.1 | Evidence supplied |
| M3 | ISO 9001 or equivalent quality management | SQ 5.2 | Confirmation required — documented QMS held, not certified; "equivalent" route viable, clarify format |
| M4 | SSIP H&S accreditation | SQ 5.1 | Evidence supplied — CHAS Elite, expires Jan 2027 |
| M5 | NICEIC (or equivalent) enrolment | Spec 2.4 | Evidence supplied |
| M6 | Cyber Essentials certification | SQ 6.3 | Gap — not held; certifiable before deadline (see 4) |
| M7 | 3 comparable contracts, last 3 years | SQ 7.1 | 2 of 3 ready — third exists but not written up |
| M8 | Turnover ≥ 2× annual lot value | SQ 3.2 | Met for Lot 2 — £680k vs £300k required. Not met for Lots 1/3 — do not bid those |
Mandatory pass/fail. Self-assessed certification is typically achievable in 1–2 weeks. Start immediately; the certificate must be dated on or before submission day. Estimated cost: low hundreds of pounds.
The Meadowbank sheltered-scheme rewire (2024) fits the comparability test, but exists only as invoices and a completion certificate. Needs writing up: scope, value, KPIs met, and a named referee — confirm the referee is willing before naming them.
The SQ accepts "or equivalent". Calder's documented procedures cover inspection, calibration and non-conformance — a two-page equivalence mapping against ISO 9001 clauses should be prepared and submitted with the QMS index. Use the clarification window to confirm the buyer accepts this format.
Calder employs one apprentice (enrolment letter on file) and sources materials from two local wholesalers (supplier statements). This supports a modest but true social-value answer. Do not pledge new commitments that can't be delivered — unmet social-value promises become contract breaches.
| Factor | Weight | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility (mandatories met/fixable) | 30 | 24 | All pass or fixable in window; CE certification is the single hard dependency |
| Deliverability (capacity, geography) | 25 | 21 | Lot 2 volume ≈ 2.1 FTE electricians; depot 35 min from patch centre |
| Competitiveness (quality scoring) | 25 | 15 | 60% quality weighting favours evidence-rich SME answers, but expect 6–10 bidders incl. 2 incumbents |
| Commercial attractiveness | 20 | 12 | Measured-term rates; margin depends on remedials mix — model both volume scenarios before pricing |
| Total | 100 | 72 | BID — Lot 2 only, conditional on starting Cyber Essentials this week |
Lots 1 and 3 fail the turnover test today — bidding them wastes the buyer's goodwill and your writing time. Winning Lot 2 and delivering well is also the strongest possible evidence for the re-let in 2030.
Q3 (resourcing): "We will recruit if successful" scores poorly. Name the two qualified electricians and the apprentice; include the subcontractor agreement for peak cover.
Q4 (access & vulnerable residents): the spec mentions sheltered schemes — a generic access process will score 2/5; a specific vulnerable-resident procedure with the Meadowbank example should score 4+.
Pricing schedule: the remedials rate card has 40+ line items; three obviously loss-leading rates invite a "abnormally low" clarification and erode trust. Price honestly, win on quality.
| Week of 10 Aug | Register on portal · start Cyber Essentials · brief referee for third case study |
| Week of 17 Aug | Draft method statements Q1–Q3 · submit clarification on QMS equivalence · write up Meadowbank case study |
| Week of 24 Aug | Draft Q4–Q5 · price both remedials scenarios · internal red-team review against evaluation criteria |
| Week of 31 Aug | Final assembly · director sign-off · upload complete pack by Fri 4 Sep (4 days early) |
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. "Calder Electrical Services Ltd", the buyer and all dates, values and documents are fictional; the structure mirrors requirements commonly seen in UK housing-sector electrical frameworks. Not legal or procurement advice; no output guarantees any contract award.