One enquiry, priced like for like
The Supplier Enquiry Pack issues the WP-09 mechanical package to the market on identical terms: a priced BoQ template, the mechanical drawings and specification, the programme constraints and the commercial terms, so returns compare on the same scope against a fixed budget.
- Package
- WP-09 Mechanical
- Client
- Cushman Workplace
- Budget
- £218,400
- Issued
- w/c 25 May 2026
- Prepared by
- S. Okafor, BuiltAI
- Reference
- NG-SEP-09
Illustrative example: fictional project and parties.
The scope, as a priced template
The Supplier Enquiry Pack issues the WP-09 mechanical package to the market on identical terms, so four returns compare on the same scope against a £218,400 budget. The heart of the pack is a priced Bill of Quantities template: the supplier prices each line, and nothing is left to a supplier's own take-off.
| Item | Description | Qty | Unit | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09.01 | Fan coil units, supply, Daikin FWF-C 3.5kW or equivalent | 21 | nr | £ / nr |
| 09.02 | Fan coil unit, slim variant, supply | 1 | nr | £ / nr |
| 09.03 | FCU installation, ceiling void, connect and test | 22 | nr | £ / nr |
| 09.04 | Ductwork modifications, galvanised to DW/172 | 3 | floor | £ / floor |
| 09.05 | CHW pipework, riser to FCU connections | 3 | floor | £ / floor |
| 09.06 | Condensate pipework, insulated MUPVC | 3 | floor | £ / floor |
| 09.07 | Grilles and diffusers, supply and install | 44 | nr | £ / nr |
| 09.08 | BMS interface, BACnet gateway to Trend IQ4 | 3 | floor | £ / floor |
| 09.09 | Commissioning, flow balance and FCU | 1 | sum | £ |
The full template runs to twelve lines, including O&M documentation, preliminaries and a measured day rate for minor works, so the return is complete and comparable.
Drawings, specification and programme
The enquiry is issued against a fixed information set so no bidder prices a different picture. The mechanical drawings DWG-M-01 are at Rev C, eight sheets, issued by Lambourne Vance Engineers, and the specification is SPC-M-01, sections T10 and T31. The programme constraints are stated: FCU positions need ceiling-plenum access, and the works are sequenced to the sectional dates.
Every bidder prices the same Rev C drawings and the same specification sections. A bidder who wishes to qualify or exclude must say so explicitly in the return, which is exactly what the Tender Return Analysis then normalises.
Commercial terms and submission
The pack sets the commercial terms once: a JCT Design and Build sub-contract, retention, the insurance levels required, and the sub-contractor's responsibility for its own RAMS. Returns are due Friday 12 June, comprising a priced Bill of Quantities, a method statement and a programme.
| Term | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Sub-contract | JCT Design and Build, back to back with the main contract |
| Insurance | £5m public liability, £10m professional indemnity |
| RAMS | Sub-contractor responsible for its own risk assessment and method |
| Retention | 3%, released on practical completion and end of defects |
| Payment | Monthly application, valued and certified, paid within 30 days |
| Tender validity | 90 days from the return date |
| Clarifications | Raised in writing by Fri 5 Jun 2026, answered to all four bidders |
| Returns due | Fri 12 Jun 2026, priced BoQ, method and programme |
The return is a fixed set of documents, not a price alone, so a bidder is compared on how it will run the work as much as on what it will charge. Each item is scored in the Tender Return Analysis, and a missing return document is a compliance flag before it is a price question.
| Returnable | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Priced Bill of Quantities | Every template line priced, no line left blank |
| Method statement | Installation sequence and ceiling-void access approach |
| Programme | Aligned to the sectional dates, FCU positions shown |
| Competency evidence | F-gas registration and two comparable Cat-B references |
| Insurances | £5m public liability, £10m professional indemnity |
| Qualifications | Any exclusion or assumption stated explicitly in the return |
All clarifications are raised in writing and answered to all four bidders together, so no bidder prices against an answer the others did not see. A qualification that is not written into the return is treated as not made, which is what keeps the four returns genuinely comparable.
On the return date the four priced Bills are locked and passed to the Tender Return Analysis with no further edits. From that point a bidder cannot revise a price, only answer a clarification, so the comparison is made on what was submitted rather than on a moving figure. That discipline is what lets the lowest true price be found rather than the lowest headline.