COMPLETED SYNTHETIC BID CHECK
Cedar Fork: an evidence-linked Bid Check example
Review a completed synthetic tender comparison showing headline pricing, material exclusions, programme dependencies, clarification actions and evidence-linked findings. No client information is used.
SR-118 Cedar Fork River Crossing
This synthetic example shows how AKTE tests the apparent price position against exclusions, qualifications, programme assumptions and the supporting source evidence.
SR-118 Cedar Fork River Crossing
Three fictional bidders responding to a fictional bridge replacement tender — built to show how AKTE structures a comparison, flags material findings and traces conclusions back to source pages.
Pricing basis differs. Clarification required before comparison.
Bidder B's lump sum excludes structural steel fabrication, which Bidders A and C include within their base price. Totals are not directly comparable until the excluded scope is priced on a common basis.
Program assumes unconfirmed early access.
The 11-month program is conditioned on site access four weeks earlier than the date stated in the tender documents. The program advantage may not be achievable under the issued schedule.
Request Bidder B's price to fabricate and install structural steel on the same inclusion basis as Bidders A and C, so totals can be compared like for like.Recommended before shortlisting
Bidder A and Bidder C are broadly comparable on scope inclusions and commercial basis. Bidder B's lower total is not currently verified on the same basis, pending clarification of the structural steel omission, and its program advantage assumes site access earlier than the tender allows. No bidder currently presents a fully qualifying submission without clarification.
This is a synthesis of findings, not a recommendation. AKTE does not select a bidder.
What the sample shows
Project and scope overview — the synthetic procurement context, accepted source set, evaluation basis and stated limitations.
Headline bidder comparison — a consistent view of the material information supplied by each synthetic bidder.
Priority findings — issues relevant to the decision, distinguishing facts, conclusions, assumptions and missing information.
Evidence references — the synthetic source document, section and page supporting each material finding.
Clarification actions — questions to resolve where a response is incomplete, ambiguous, inconsistent or materially qualified.
Scope and limitations — what the sample considered, what it did not consider and where professional judgement remains necessary.
The sample is synthetic and does not represent a real client evaluation. It is not a bidder recommendation, legal advice or a guarantee of outcome. Professional judgement and the award decision remain with the client.
Have a tender to compare now?
Begin with the project characteristics and AKTE will identify the evaluation route likely to fit.
Begin with a short project fit check. No confidential documents required.