Decision Dossier
Executive comparison, detailed findings, evidence references, clarification actions, limitations and decision boundaries.
SYNTHETIC DECISION DOSSIER
Sample Decision Dossier
This synthetic Decision Dossier shows how AKTE structures bid information, identifies material differences, records issues requiring clarification and connects findings to the supplied source documents. It supports the client’s evaluation and recommendation. AKTE does not select or award the bidder.
Synthetic demonstration only. No real client, bidder or procurement information is shown.
Decision Dossier report preview
Inside the Stonepine Bridge Upgrade evaluation
Selected extracts from the PDF Decision Dossier, editable comparison workbook and Release Manifest. Every item below relates to the same synthetic project and the same three fictional bidders.
Synthetic demonstration only. No real client, bidder or procurement information is shown.
Deliverables
What the decision team receives
The previews demonstrate the structure and traceability of the evaluation rather than reproducing every page or worksheet.
XLSX
Editable comparison workbook
A working record of the bid comparison, findings register, clarification log and source register.
Manifest
Release Manifest
A controlled record of the deliverables prepared, quality-checked and issued for the project.
Executive overview
The comparative position at a glance
The executive view brings the material differences together without replacing the detailed evidence underneath them.
Bidders compared
3
Bidder A, Bidder B and Bidder C
Submitted prices
$7.66M to $8.92M
Before like-for-like clarification of the identified exclusion
Programme range
11 to 15 months
Bidder B's 11-month programme assumes unconfirmed early access
Selected findings
2 open
Both require clarification before the comparison is concluded
Comparative position
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 because structural steel fabrication is excluded, and its programme advantage assumes 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.
Comparison matrix
Detailed bidder comparison
The matrix brings information from differently structured submissions into a consistent review format.
| Comparison area | Bidder A | Bidder B | Bidder C | Evidence status | Decision relevance | Clarification required |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Submitted price | $8.14M | $7.66M | $8.92M | Clarification required | Bidder B appears lowest, but its total excludes structural steel fabrication. | Obtain steel fabrication and installation pricing on the same inclusion basis. |
| Programme | 14 months | 11 months, subject to earlier access | 15 months | Clarification required | Bidder B's apparent programme advantage depends on access four weeks earlier than the tender allows. | Confirm whether early access is available. If not, request a compliant programme. |
| Structural steel fabrication | Included | Excluded | Included | Confirmed | The submitted totals are not currently comparable on the same scope basis. | Resolve through clarification CL-01 before comparative pricing is concluded. |
| Pricing basis | Lump sum | Lump sum with steel excluded | Lump sum | Clarification required | The description of Bidder B's total as lump sum does not remove the identified scope exclusion. | Confirm the full like-for-like total and revised inclusion statement. |
Submitted price comparison
Submitted price comparison only. This is not a bidder ranking or award recommendation.
Findings register
Priority findings requiring attention
Detailed findings separate confirmed evidence from unresolved points so the decision team can see what is known and what still requires clarification.
DD-01
Clarification requiredPricing basis differs
Affected bidder: Bidder B
Source: Commercial Submission, p. 18, l. 7; Appendix C, p. 41, l. 10
Observation: Structural steel fabrication is priced separately, and no steel pricing was found in the referenced appendix.
Decision relevance: Bidder B's lower submitted total is not verified on the same scope basis as Bidders A and C.
Clarification action: Request the price to fabricate and install structural steel on the same inclusion basis as Bidders A and C.
DD-02
Clarification requiredProgramme assumes unconfirmed early access
Affected bidder: Bidder B
Source: Programme Narrative, p. 6, l. 4
Observation: The 11-month programme is conditioned on site access four weeks earlier than the tender date.
Decision relevance: The apparent programme advantage may not be achievable under the issued schedule.
Clarification action: Confirm whether the earlier access date can be provided. If not, request an updated compliant programme.
Evidence trail
From finding to clarification action
Every material finding remains connected to its source so the decision team can verify the basis of the analysis.
1. Finding
DD-01
Pricing basis differs.
2. Source
Commercial Submission
p. 18, l. 7; Appendix C, p. 41, l. 10
3. Observation
Steel excluded
Steel fabrication is separately priced, but no price was found in the referenced appendix.
4. Decision relevance
Totals not comparable
Bidder B's lower total is not yet on the same scope basis.
5. Action
Clarify CL-01
Obtain steel pricing on the same inclusion basis before concluding the comparison.
Clarification register
Questions to resolve before the evaluation is concluded
The register gives the client a practical list of factual points arising from the supported sample findings.
| Reference | Bidder | Related finding | Clarification required | Current status | Effect on comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CL-01 | Bidder B | DD-01 | Provide the price to fabricate and install structural steel on the same inclusion basis as Bidders A and C. | Open | Submitted totals are not yet comparable on a like-for-like scope basis. |
| CL-02 | Bidder B | DD-02 | Confirm whether the programme remains achievable using the access date stated in the tender documents. | Open | The stated 11-month programme advantage remains unverified. |
Editable workbook
A working record aligned with the PDF dossier
The workbook uses the same bidders, prices, finding IDs, status labels, clarification references and evidence sources as the report.
Workbook views
OverviewBid comparisonFindings registerClarification logSource register
| Finding ID | Bidder | Status | Source | Clarification reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DD-01 | Bidder B | Clarification required | Commercial Submission, p. 18, l. 7 | CL-01 |
| DD-02 | Bidder B | Clarification required | Programme Narrative, p. 6, l. 4 | CL-02 |
Release Manifest
A controlled record of the issued deliverables
This simplified preview demonstrates the manifest structure. It contains no fictional signature, approval or delivery date.
| Deliverable | File type | Version | Quality-check status | Release status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision Dossier | v1.0 | Quality-checked | Illustrative sample | |
| Comparison workbook | XLSX | v1.0 | Quality-checked | Illustrative sample |
| Release Manifest | v1.0 | Quality-checked | Illustrative sample |
The Release Manifest records the controlled deliverables issued for the project. It does not transfer the client's decision or award authority to AKTE.
Decision authority
Evidence support, not an automated award decision
The Decision Dossier structures the available evidence and highlights matters relevant to the client's evaluation. It does not replace professional judgement, legal or technical advice, bidder clarification, approval governance or the client's award decision.
The client retains responsibility for its evaluation, recommendation, approvals and final procurement decision.
What remains outside this sample
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 we’ll identify the evaluation route likely to fit.
Begin with a short project fit check. No confidential documents required.