What a tender evaluation report should contain

By AKTE · 16 September 2026

A tender evaluation report should help another reader understand the comparison and check its basis. A table of prices alone rarely explains scope qualifications, missing evidence or unresolved assumptions.

The exact report depends on the procurement and the agreed evaluation rules. The following structure is a practical starting point for documenting an evidence-linked review; it is not a substitute for project-specific or statutory requirements.

1. Scope and evaluation basis

Identify the project, package, bidders and review date. State the agreed scope of the evaluation, the criteria supplied by the client and any matters outside the review. Explain whether the document is an initial review, an update after clarification or a final issue.

Readers should be able to distinguish an unresolved evaluation from a completed comparison without searching through the appendices.

2. Source register

List the tender requirements, bidder submissions, revisions and clarification responses used. Use stable document identifiers and record the applicable version. Where material source information is missing, identify what could not be assessed.

A source register makes it easier to establish which documents supported the report when later revisions arrive.

3. Bid comparison

Compare each bidder against the same relevant headings. Preserve submitted prices and distinguish inclusions, exclusions, qualifications and items needing clarification. Separate stated program durations from the assumptions on which they depend.

Explain any calculation or adjustment, including its basis. Do not present a number as a verified like-for-like price while material scope remains unresolved.

4. Findings linked to evidence

Give each material finding an identifier. Record the bidder, source location, observed statement, relevance to the comparison and the action required. Separate direct evidence from the reviewer’s interpretation.

For example, the synthetic Stonepine sample records an exclusion in Bidder B’s commercial submission. The exclusion is the observation. The resulting uncertainty about comparable price is its decision relevance. Obtaining the missing pricing is the clarification action.

5. Clarification register

Show the question, related finding, responsible person, status and response reference. If a response changes the comparison, record the change and identify the affected report version. Keep unanswered questions visible.

The client should control how questions are issued under the applicable procurement process. An evaluation report should not imply permission to renegotiate or change the rules.

6. Summary, limitations and issue record

Summarise the material differences, what remains unresolved and which conclusions the evidence supports. Make the client’s decision responsibilities explicit. Record the version and review status so readers know which issue they are using.

Where the report is accompanied by a workbook, use matching bidder names, finding identifiers and source references. A delivery manifest can identify the files issued together and their versions.