professional-toolkit/skills/tender-bid-evaluation/SKILL.md

---
name: tender-bid-evaluation-matrix
description: >
  Build structured scoring matrices for RFP and tender evaluations from the
  procurement authority's perspective. Use this skill whenever a user mentions
  tender evaluation, bid scoring, RFP assessment, procurement evaluation, public
  procurement, bid analysis, abnormally low bids, or bid rigging. Also trigger
  when users are evaluating vendor proposals, creating evaluation criteria,
  building scoring rubrics for procurement, or assessing compliance of tender
  submissions. This is specifically for the BUYER side — the contracting authority
  evaluating bids, not the vendor responding to an RFP.
---

# Tender Bid Evaluation Matrix

Build a structured, auditable evaluation matrix for procurement authorities
assessing competitive bids. This skill generates weighted scoring criteria,
mandatory compliance gates, pricing analysis with abnormally-low-bid detection,
and OECD collusion screening indicators.

## When to Use

- You are a procurement officer evaluating bids received for a tender/RFP
- You need to build evaluation criteria before issuing a tender
- You are auditing a past procurement decision for procedural soundness
- You need to document an award recommendation for a governance body
- You want to screen a bid pool for collusion indicators

## Core Principle

**The lowest compliant bid is not automatically the best bid.** Procurement
authorities must evaluate technical merit, pricing realism, and delivery
capability. An abnormally low bid may indicate the bidder misunderstands the
scope, plans to recover costs through change orders, or is participating in a
collusion scheme. This skill helps structure the evaluation to catch these risks
before award.

## Input Requirements

Ask the user for:

1. **The tender/RFP scope** — what is being procured (services, works, goods)
2. **Number of bids received** and, if available, the bid prices
3. **Evaluation methodology** — lowest price, best value, quality-based, or fixed budget
4. **Mandatory requirements** — any pass/fail compliance gates
5. **Weighting** — if the user has predetermined weights (e.g., 60% technical / 40% price)
6. **Jurisdiction** — affects which procurement regulations apply
7. **Budget estimate** — the owner's pre-tender cost estimate (if available)

If the user has not defined evaluation criteria, generate appropriate criteria based
on the scope and methodology.

## Evaluation Framework

### Phase 1: Compliance Gate (Pass/Fail)

Before scoring, screen every bid for mandatory compliance. Any failure here
disqualifies the bid from further evaluation.

| Gate | Check |
|------|-------|
| Submission completeness | All required documents present, signed, and dated |
| Bid bond / security | Correct amount, valid issuer, correct beneficiary, not expired |
| Licensing / registration | Bidder holds required licenses for the jurisdiction |
| Insurance | Meets minimum coverage requirements stated in the tender |
| Conflict of interest | Bidder has declared any conflicts per the tender terms |
| Addenda acknowledgment | All issued addenda acknowledged in the submission |
| Bid validity period | Bid validity meets or exceeds the required period |
| Late submission | Received before the closing deadline |

### Phase 2: Technical Evaluation (Scored)

Generate criteria appropriate to the procurement type. Common frameworks:

**For Services / Consulting:**
- Understanding of requirements and methodology (20-30%)
- Team qualifications and experience (15-25%)
- Relevant past project references (10-20%)
- Project schedule and milestones (10-15%)
- Risk identification and mitigation (5-10%)
- Local presence / knowledge (5-10%)

**For Construction / Works:**
- Construction methodology and work plan (20-25%)
- Equipment and resource plan (15-20%)
- Key personnel qualifications (15-20%)
- Past project references of similar scope and scale (15-20%)
- Health and safety plan (5-10%)
- Schedule and milestone commitments (10-15%)

**For Goods / Supply:**
- Technical specifications compliance (30-40%)
- Delivery schedule and logistics (15-20%)
- Warranty and after-sales support (10-15%)
- Quality management / certifications (10-15%)
- Past supply references (10-15%)

For each criterion, provide:
- A clear description of what evaluators should look for
- Scoring levels (e.g., 0-1-2-3-4-5 or Unsatisfactory / Marginal / Acceptable / Good / Excellent)
- Descriptors for each scoring level so evaluators score consistently

### Phase 3: Price Evaluation

#### Abnormally Low Bid Detection

Before scoring prices, screen for abnormally low bids using these tests:

1. **Percentage-of-estimate test**: If the owner has a pre-tender cost estimate,
   flag any bid more than 20% below the estimate.
2. **Mean deviation test**: Calculate the mean of all bids. Flag any bid more than
   15-20% below the mean.
3. **Interquartile range test**: Calculate IQR. Flag any bid below Q1 - 1.5 × IQR.

An abnormally low bid does not disqualify automatically. The authority should
request a written explanation from the bidder covering:
- How the price was calculated
- Labour rates and productivity assumptions
- Material sourcing and pricing
- Subcontractor quotes
- Profit margin

If the explanation is unsatisfactory, the bid may be rejected on the grounds
that the bidder cannot deliver at the stated price.

#### Price Scoring Formula

For best-value evaluations, convert prices to scores. Common formula:

```
Price Score = (Lowest Bid Price / Bidder's Price) × Maximum Price Points
```

### Phase 4: OECD Collusion Screening

Screen the bid pool for indicators of bid rigging. These are documented patterns
from OECD Guidelines for Fighting Bid Rigging in Public Procurement (2012):

| Pattern | What to Look For |
|---------|-----------------|
| **Cover bidding** | Bids that are unusually high relative to the winner, suggesting they were submitted only to create the appearance of competition. Look for round-number bids, bids with identical unusual features, or bids that are mathematically related. |
| **Bid rotation** | Across multiple tenders, the same firms take turns being the low bidder. Review award history for the same group of firms appearing repeatedly. |
| **Market allocation** | Firms divide markets by geography, customer, or product type. If certain firms only bid in certain regions or for certain types of work, this may indicate allocation. |
| **Bid suppression** | Firms that obtained tender documents or attended the pre-bid meeting do not submit bids. This may indicate an agreement not to compete. |
| **Subcontracting to losers** | The winning bidder subcontracts work to a firm that also bid. This may indicate a pre-arrangement. |
| **Joint venture anomalies** | Firms that could bid independently form a JV, reducing competition. |

Note: These are indicators, not proof. Document the observations and refer to
the relevant competition authority if patterns are concerning.

## Output Format

```markdown
# Tender Evaluation Report

## Summary
- **Tender Reference:** [Number]
- **Description:** [What was procured]
- **Closing Date:** [Date]
- **Bids Received:** [Number]
- **Evaluation Method:** [Lowest price / Best value / Quality-based]
- **Budget Estimate:** $[amount] (if available)

## Compliance Gate Results

| Bidder | Completeness | Bid Bond | Licensing | Insurance | COI | Addenda | Validity | Deadline | Result |
|--------|-------------|----------|-----------|-----------|-----|---------|----------|----------|--------|
| [Name] | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | PASS/FAIL |

## Price Analysis

| Bidder | Bid Price | % of Estimate | % of Mean | ALB Flag |
|--------|----------|---------------|-----------|----------|
| [Name] | $[amount] | [%] | [%] | [Yes/No] |

**Mean bid price:** $[amount]
**Abnormally low threshold:** $[amount]

## Technical Scores

| Criterion | Weight | Bidder A | Bidder B | Bidder C |
|-----------|--------|---------|---------|---------|
| [Name] | [%] | [score] | [score] | [score] |
| **Weighted Total** | 100% | [total] | [total] | [total] |

## Combined Score (Best Value)

| Bidder | Technical (×[weight]) | Price (×[weight]) | Total | Rank |
|--------|----------------------|-------------------|-------|------|
| [Name] | [score] | [score] | [score] | [rank] |

## Collusion Screening

| Indicator | Observations | Risk Level |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| Cover bidding | [observations] | [None/Low/Medium/High] |
| Bid rotation | [observations] | [None/Low/Medium/High] |
| Market allocation | [observations] | [None/Low/Medium/High] |

## Award Recommendation

[Recommended bidder and rationale, addressing any flags raised during evaluation.]
```

## Important Notes

- This skill structures the evaluation process. Evaluation committees must apply
  professional judgment when scoring.
- Collusion indicators are observations for referral, not accusations. Handle
  with appropriate confidentiality and refer to competition authorities if warranted.
- For automated adversarial analysis of tender submissions — cross-referencing
  bidder claims against public records, financial data, and historical bid patterns
  — see [DiligenceWorks](https://diligenceworks.online).