Bid Evaluation for a Water Distribution Project
A provincial council invites bids for a 12 km water distribution improvement project estimated at LKR 480 million with an 18-month construction period. The bid document requires CIDA grade C3 registration and bid security of LKR 5 million valid for 120 days from bid opening. Bid A is LKR 422 million, 12% below the estimate, with C3 registration, a LKR 5 million bank guarantee valid 150 days, and a conditional 3% discount if paid within 15 days; its excavation rates are 35% above the engineer's estimate while later-item rates are low. Bid B is LKR 468 million with C4 registration and LKR 4.2 million security. Bid C is LKR 495 million with C3 registration, LKR 5 million security valid 90 days, and an alternative pipe material. You chair the evaluation committee.
1. Assess the responsiveness of Bids A, B and C.
Read the worked answer
Bid A: C3 registration meets the requirement; the security amount is LKR 5 million and validity is 150 days, both acceptable. The conditional 3% discount is a qualification: because it depends on payment within 15 days, it cannot be evaluated on the same basis as other bids. Clarify it and evaluate without the discount; if the bid is conditional on the discount, treat it as non-responsive.
Bid B: non-responsive. C4 registration is below the required C3, and the security of LKR 4.2 million is below the required LKR 5 million.
Bid C: non-responsive on bid security validity. 90 days is less than the required 120 days from bid opening. The alternative pipe material is acceptable only if the bid document permits alternatives; otherwise it is also a deviation. The security deficiency is material and cannot be corrected after bid opening.
Therefore only Bid A is potentially responsive, subject to clarification of the discount.
2. Evaluate the unbalanced pricing in Bid A and recommend safeguards.
Read the worked answer
Bid A is materially unbalanced: excavation rates are 35% above the engineer's estimate and later rates are low, with 40% of the work in the first three months. This is front-loading, which improves the contractor's cash flow and increases the employer's financial risk if the contractor defaults or quantities change. Unbalanced pricing is not automatically a ground for rejection if the total price is reasonable and the bid is responsive, but it must be evaluated.
Actions: obtain a rate breakdown and compare each rate with the engineer's estimate; check cash-flow implications; require a performance security of 10% of contract price and, if any advance payment is contemplated, an advance-payment guarantee. Avoid advance payment; use milestone payments and retention. Do not negotiate rates after bid opening. If the unbalanced pricing is so severe that it creates unacceptable risk, or if the low price is below cost, reject the bid and re-tender rather than accept a risky contract.
3. What award decision would you recommend, and why?
Read the worked answer
Clarify Bid A's conditional discount and rate breakdown. If A confirms the bid is unconditional and the total price of LKR 422 million is sustainable, award to A, ignoring the conditional discount, with enhanced performance security, no advance payment, and close supervision of early works. The 12% below-estimate price is not automatically abnormal, but the rate analysis should show that excavation, pipe supply and laying rates are viable.
If A insists on the conditional discount or cannot justify the rates, the bid is non-responsive or unacceptable. Because B and C are non-responsive, re-tender with a corrected bid document and a clearer statement on discounts and alternatives. Document the reasons for rejection and retain all bid securities until the process is complete.