Tendering a build without buying a low number

A developer running a tender wants a number. The number is the easiest thing to compare and the least useful on its own.

A price well under the field usually reflects a different scope, a thinner allowance or a builder planning to recover it through variations.

Compare the scope before the price

Two tenders priced against the same drawings can still cover different work. Provisional sums, prime cost items and exclusions move the real figure a long way.

Normalising the scope first, then comparing, turns a price list into a decision. Skipping that step compares three different jobs.

The exclusions page carries the risk

Every tender excludes something, and the exclusions are where a low price usually hides. Site works, service connections and authority fees are the common ones.

A developer reading only the summary page buys those exclusions without knowing. They arrive later as variations at a price nobody tested against the market.

Score on more than cost

• The price, normalised for scope.
• Programme, since months cost interest and holding charges.
• Capacity, meaning the work they already hold and the people they can actually field.
• Their track record, on projects of this size rather than any size.
• Financial standing, because a builder failing mid project is the worst outcome available.

Weighting those before the tenders arrive prevents the score from following whatever the lowest number wants.

Ask every builder the same questions, in writing

A tender period where each builder receives different answers produces tenders nobody can compare.

One written question and answer set, issued to all of them, keeps the field level and creates a record of what each one priced.

An addendum issued late in the tender period needs a matching extension. A builder pricing a change in the last two days prices it defensively, which costs the developer either way.

A tender period that is too short produces the same effect across the whole field, and the savings never appear.

A builder's capacity matters more than their price

A builder taking on a project beyond their current capacity delivers late, and late costs a developer more than a small price difference.

Asking what else they hold, and who will actually run the site, reveals more than any reference check.

Contract type moves the risk

A fixed price shifts risk to the builder, who prices for it. A cost plus arrangement keeps it with the developer and can cost less if the project stays controlled.

Neither is right by default. Our guide to feasibility sensitivity covers testing which one the project can actually carry.

A guaranteed maximum price sits between the two, capping the developer's exposure while sharing any saving. It suits a project with a finished design and a site that still holds some unknowns.

Whichever shape the contract takes, the tender should price that shape. A builder quoting a fixed price on incomplete drawings is quoting a variation strategy rather than a building.

Keep the tender record

The tenders, the questions, the clarifications and the scoring all matter later, when a variation claims something was never included.

A developer who can produce what the builder priced settles that conversation quickly. One who cannot pays for the ambiguity.

A shortlist of three serious builders beats a field of six. Each tender costs a builder real money to prepare, and a crowded list attracts the ones least likely to win it properly.

What to change first

• Scope gets normalised before any price comparison
• The exclusions page gets read line by line
• Scoring weights get set before the tenders arrive
• Every builder receives the same written answers
• Capacity and the named site manager carry real weight
• The tender record gets kept for the variations that follow