Every return is evaluated against 15 criteria, each weighted to reflect its importance to this project. Price matters — but it's 25% of the score, not 100%. A low price with exclusions, thin QHSE credentials, or programme risk can cost more than a higher price with a compliant, low-risk return.
Each criterion is scored 1–5 per supplier: 5 (excellent/exceeds), 4 (good/compliant), 3 (adequate/minor gaps), 2 (below standard/concerns), 1 (non-compliant/reject). The weighted score determines the ranking. The recommendation considers the score plus qualitative risk factors.
| Category | Criterion | Weight | What We're Assessing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial (43%) | 1. Price Competitiveness | 25% | Normalised price after exclusions/qualifications added back |
| 2. ACE — Commercial Envelope | 10% | Exclusions, qualifications, caveats, assumptions. How clean is the return? | |
| 3. Warranty & Defects Terms | 8% | DLP alignment, warranty scope, manufacturer-backed vs contractor-backed | |
| Delivery (23%) | 4. Programme & Lead Times | 10% | Alignment with master programme, lead time risks, mobilisation speed |
| 5. Quality of Return / Compliance | 8% | Completeness, BoQ coverage, spec compliance, missing items | |
| 6. Capacity & Current Workload | 5% | Team availability, competing projects, resource risk | |
| Risk & Compliance (19%) | 7. QHSE | 8% | H&S record (AFR/RIDDOR), quality systems, environmental credentials |
| 8. Accreditations | 5% | ISO 9001/14001/45001, CHAS, Constructionline, F-Gas, NICEIC, BESA | |
| 9. Risk Profile | 6% | Financial stability, insurance levels, dispute history, supply chain risk | |
| Experience (12%) | 10. Past Experience / Case Studies | 6% | Similar projects (Cat-B, commercial, M&E), scale, sector relevance |
| 11. Local Labour / Management | 3% | Local management presence, workforce from within 30-mile radius | |
| 12. Geographical Coverage | 3% | Office proximity, response time for snagging/defects, regional presence | |
| Social & Design (3%) | 13. Social Value | 3% | Apprenticeships, local employment, community engagement, modern slavery |
| 14. Design Capability | — | Assessed qualitatively — not scored (D&B design element is MC-led) | |
| 15. Financial Standing | — | Pass/fail credit check — not scored unless marginal | |
| TOTAL | 100% | ||
Before scoring, each return is checked against mandatory compliance requirements. A fail on any item means the return cannot proceed to scoring without clarification or re-submission.
| Requirement | Ardenwood | Meridian | Oakfield | Pennine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return received by deadline | PASS | PASS | PASS | PASS |
| All BoQ items priced (no blanks) | PASS | PASS | 2 BLANKS | 6 BLANKS |
| Insurance levels met (£5m PL/£10m PI) | PASS | PASS | PASS | £2m PI |
| Credit check — satisfactory | PASS | PASS | PASS | PASS |
| Method statement submitted | PASS | PASS | PASS | GENERIC |
| Programme submitted | PASS | PASS | PASS | MISSING |
| F-Gas registration (mandatory) | PASS | PASS | PASS | PASS |
| Modern slavery statement | PASS | PASS | PASS | PASS |
Each supplier scored 1–5 per criterion. Weighted score = raw score × weight. Total determines ranking. Pennine scored despite compliance gaps — shown for comparison but flagged.
| Criterion | Wt | Ardenwood | Meridian | Oakfield | Pennine |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Price Competitiveness | 25% | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 2. ACE — Commercial Envelope | 10% | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| 3. Warranty & Defects | 8% | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| 4. Programme & Lead Times | 10% | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| 5. Quality of Return | 8% | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 6. Capacity / Workload | 5% | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| 7. QHSE | 8% | 4 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 8. Accreditations | 5% | 4 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 9. Risk Profile | 6% | 4 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 10. Past Experience | 6% | 4 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 11. Local Labour / Mgmt | 3% | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| 12. Geographical Coverage | 3% | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 13. Social Value | 3% | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| WEIGHTED TOTAL | 4.37 | 4.27 | 3.35 | 2.67 | |
| RANK | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | |
Raw tender prices don't tell the full story. Exclusions, qualifications and missing items must be priced back in to create a like-for-like comparison. This is the normalised price — what each supplier would actually cost if all scope items were included.
| Component | Ardenwood | Meridian | Oakfield | Pennine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tendered price (as submitted) | £174,200 | £198,600 | £181,400 | £162,800 |
| + Excluded items priced back in | £0 | £0 | £4,200 | £18,600 |
| + Qualifications / caveats costed | £2,400 | £0 | £3,800 | £6,200 |
| + Missing BoQ items (estimated) | £0 | £0 | £0 | £12,400 |
| NORMALISED PRICE | £176,600 | £198,600 | £189,400 | £200,000 |
| vs Budget (£186,400) | −£9,800 | +£12,200 | +£3,000 | +£13,600 |
Highest weighted score (4.37/5.00). Lowest normalised price (£176,600 — £9,800 under budget). Cleanest commercial envelope. Best local presence. Strong QHSE. Proven Cat-B M&E experience in Manchester. Low financial risk.
Meridian Climate Systems recommended as backup — premium price but exceptional return quality and lowest delivery risk. If budget allows, Meridian is the quality choice.
Disclaimer: All supplier names, prices, scores, accreditations and project references are fictional. The Tender Return Analysis is a real Built AI deliverable produced as part of The Pre-Con Pack™ workflow. The evaluation methodology, criteria weightings and scoring framework represent Built AI's recommended approach — clients may adjust weightings to reflect their own procurement priorities.