One contractor bid is much cheaper. What should you check?

By AKTE · 25 September 2026

A lower tender total is a reason to investigate the comparison, not a conclusion about value. Before recommending a contractor, establish whether the bids cover the same scope, use the same pricing basis and leave similar obligations with the client.

For a project manager or procurement team under deadline pressure, the useful output is a short, evidence-linked explanation: what creates the price gap, which differences can be reconciled, and what remains uncertain.

Start with the submitted totals

Record each bidder's submitted total exactly as received, including its currency, tax basis, revision and date. Keep that original figure visible throughout the review. A comparison adjustment is a separate analytical step; it must not silently replace the bidder's offer.

Check arithmetic and reconcile the tender letter with the pricing schedule. If they disagree, record both references and ask which figure governs the offer. Do not choose whichever makes the comparison easier.

Separate scope gaps from price differences

A lower price may reflect a different quantity, specification, programme assumption or allocation of responsibility. Trace the difference to the relevant tender requirement and bid response. An express exclusion is different from a qualification, and both are different from silence.

For example, “commissioning excluded” is a stated scope gap. “Commissioning by others if required” introduces a condition. No mention of commissioning establishes neither inclusion nor exclusion. Keep those distinctions visible and seek clarification where the position affects the comparison.

Check provisional sums and allowances

Provisional sums and allowances can make totals look more comparable than the underlying offers. Record the amount, the work it is intended to cover, the stated pricing basis and any associated fees or exclusions. Check the tender documents and proposed contract basis before assuming how an allowance will be spent or adjusted.

A larger allowance is not automatically worse value, and a smaller allowance is not evidence of a saving. If the underlying work is the same but the allowances differ, show that difference explicitly. Do not treat an unpriced item as zero cost or add a speculative figure to create a definitive ranking.

A simple example: the apparent saving changes

Illustrative example only: Bid A totals €920,000 and Bid B totals €980,000, on the same stated currency and tax basis. Bid A includes a €20,000 allowance for an identified work item; Bid B includes €70,000 for that same item. The submitted gap is €60,000, of which €50,000 comes from the different allowance amounts.

If the project team approves a comparison scenario using a common €70,000 allowance for this item, Bid A's scenario total becomes €970,000 and Bid B remains €980,000. The scenario gap is then €10,000. Neither submitted offer has changed. The scenario does not establish the eventual cost of the work, and it is meaningful only if the allowance scope and associated charges are genuinely comparable.

If Bid A also excludes commissioning, its cost remains an unresolved exposure until a supportable basis is available. Do not call Bid A “€10,000 cheaper overall” while that exclusion remains open. Present the scenario, its assumptions and the unresolved item together.

Test quantities, rates and conditions

Where the tender basis permits a meaningful quantity comparison, check units, quantities, rates and extensions. Distinguish a calculation error from a different measured quantity or omitted item. A rate without a confirmed quantity may not support a reliable total comparison.

Review qualifications affecting programme, access, design responsibility, payment, validity and price adjustment. A commercial condition may explain a lower price without appearing as a separate line item. Record its possible effect without inventing a monetary value.

Turn the review into an actionable record

For each material difference, record the requirement, the bidder's position, the source location, the issue to clarify and its current status. Keep submitted totals, approved comparison scenarios and unresolved exposures separate. Update the record when a written clarification changes the position, preserving the original response and revision trail.

The team should be able to explain why the lowest submitted price is or is not comparable, what still needs an answer, and which assumptions support its recommendation. A lowest-price label alone cannot do that.

Where AKTE can help

AKTE provides independent tender evaluation for project and procurement teams that need help reconciling substantial or inconsistent submissions. A Bid Check can focus on priority concerns; a Decision Dossier provides a fuller structured comparison. Expanded reporting and more complex tender structures can be scoped through Decision Dossier Plus or Complex / Multi-Lot.

The starting point is a project fit check to agree whether the documents, questions and timing fit the service. Your team controls bidder communications, the recommendation and the final award decision. This guide is a practical review aid; the applicable tender procedure and contract requirements still govern the project.