| S.No. | Field / Checkpoint | Reference | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. BIDDER LIST | |||
| A1 | Names of bidders + LBN / BoQ comparison Acceptance: Pre-bid PQ qualification verified | All technically qualified bidders | OK NC NA |
| B. TECHNICAL EVALUATION | |||
| B1 | Compliance score per bidder Acceptance: Min. cut-off for technical typical 70-80% | Marking scheme per NIT — quality cum cost based | OK NC NA |
| B2 | Deviations from specification Acceptance: Material deviations flagged | List for each bidder | OK NC NA |
| C. PRICE COMPARISON | |||
| C1 | Quoted price + corrected price (arithmetic errors) Acceptance: Correction noted in comparison | CPWD Para 36 — arithmetic errors correction | OK NC NA |
| C2 | Ranking L1 / L2 / L3 by corrected price Acceptance: Ranking unambiguous | L1 lowest | OK NC NA |
| C3 | Price reasonableness — comparison vs estimate Acceptance: Variance documented + justified | L1 vs estimated cost; >10% above triggers re-tender consideration (CPWD) | OK NC NA |
The Bid Comparison Statement is the central decision document in any government, PSU, or large private procurement. After bid opening, the tender committee uses this statement to: - Rank bidders as L1 / L2 / L3 by quoted + corrected price - Compare technical compliance across bidders - Flag deviations that affect comparability - Recommend award to competent authority - Defend the award against vigilance / CAG / CVC audits + court challenges
In India, tender award decisions are heavily audited: - CAG (Comptroller + Auditor General) — for govt projects - CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) — vigilance angle - Department of Expenditure — financial propriety - State Lokayukta — for state govt tenders - High Court / Supreme Court — disqualified bidders frequently file writ petitions
Without a defensible, transparent techno-commercial Bid Comparison Statement: - Award decisions get challenged + stalled - L2 bidders file writ; tender stuck for 12-24 months - Vigilance proceedings against committee members - Award cancelled by court; re-tender required - Personal accountability for committee members
Governed by: - CPWD Works Manual 2019 (paragraphs 30-50 on tender evaluation) - General Financial Rules (GFR) 2017 (Chapter 6 on procurement) - Manual for Procurement of Works 2022 (MoF) - CVC Circulars on tender evaluation - NHAI Standard Bidding Documents + state PWD circulars
Two-stage tender process (most common):
Stage 1 — Technical bid opening: - Both technical + financial bids submitted - Only technical bids opened first - Technical evaluation done - Technically qualified bidders identified - Financial bids of unqualified bidders returned unopened - Technical disqualification grounds documented
Stage 2 — Financial bid opening: - Only technically qualified bidders' financial bids opened - Public bid opening (in presence of bidders) - Read-out + recorded - Arithmetic errors identified + corrected per CPWD Para 36
Standard 4-section Bid Comparison Statement:
A. Bidder list: - Names of all bidders - Pre-qualification status (qualified / disqualified + reason) - Bid security (EMD) verified - Bid validity check - Authorisation letters / signatures - Local Bidding Norms (LBN) compliance if applicable
B. Technical evaluation: - Marking scheme per NIT (typically out of 100) - Sub-criteria: - Past similar work experience (typically 30-40 marks) - Financial standing (10-15 marks) - Technical capacity — machinery + manpower (10-15 marks) - Project management methodology (10-20 marks) - Quality + safety systems (5-10 marks) - Compliance with specifications (10-15 marks) - Each bidder scored individually + collegially - Minimum cut-off typically 70-80% — bidders below this disqualified - Deviations from specifications listed per bidder: - Material: affects scope / cost / time — typically disqualifying - Procedural: minor — bidder asked to confirm withdrawal - Beneficial to employer: e.g., extended warranty — accepted - Technical score finalised
C. Price comparison: - Quoted price as submitted - Corrected price after arithmetic correction: - Unit × quantity ≠ amount: amount corrected - Item totals adjusted - Grand total recomputed - Sub-total + grand total mismatch: per CPWD Para 36, unit rate prevails over total - L1 / L2 / L3 ranking by corrected price - Price reasonableness check: - Compared to estimated cost (from internal estimate) - L1 > 10% above estimate: re-tender consideration (CPWD) - L1 < 10% below estimate: lowest acceptable; may need price negotiation if too low - L1 < 25% below estimate: "abnormally low bid" — performance security review - Component-wise analysis (for major BOQ items): - Per-item rate comparison across bidders - Identifies pricing strategies - Flags items where bidder might be over-pricing for cushion
D. Award recommendation: - L1 recommended as default - Conditional acceptance items (if any): bidder accepts before award - Award value (corrected price) - Performance security amount + bond format - Mobilisation advance + interest - Schedule + completion period - Tender Committee approval + signatures - Competent Authority approval (per delegation): - PM / Executive Engineer up to ₹X crore - Superintending Engineer up to ₹Y - Chief Engineer up to ₹Z - Director / Board above - Final approval logged
1. Pre-qualification disputed — bidder challenges PQ disqualification; show-cause notices; tender stuck.
2. Material deviation accepted — deviation that should have disqualified is accepted; later challenged.
3. Marking scheme arbitrary — subjective scoring favouring particular bidder; vigilance issue.
4. Arithmetic correction wrong — Para 36 misapplied; price calculation incorrect; award basis flawed.
5. L1 negotiated downward — illegal under most rules; L1 cannot be asked to reduce post-bid; complaints from L2.
6. L1 disqualified post-opening — disqualification reason not water-tight; writ challenge succeeds; award reversed.
7. Sub-vendor + JV evaluation confusion — Joint Venture or sub-vendor relationships not clarified; experience claims disputed.
8. Abnormally low bid (ALB) — L1 quotes 30% below estimate; risk of non-performance; should require additional security but isn't done.
9. Award above L1 — sometimes done on "non-cost criteria"; valid only if Quality Cost Based Selection (QCBS); else illegal.
10. Late submission accepted — bid submitted past deadline accepted; serious procedural violation.
11. Bid security not verified — EMD not deposited or wrong amount; should disqualify; sometimes condoned.
12. Conditional bid accepted — bidder adds conditions ("subject to material availability"); should disqualify; sometimes accepted.
13. Tender Committee composition wrong — required quorum not met; signatories not authorised; technically void.
14. No estimate available — internal estimate not prepared / not on file; reasonableness check impossible.
15. Re-tender for non-L1 reasons — to favour preferred bidder; pure abuse; vigilance issue.
16. Negotiated tender without justification — single source / negotiated tender used without recorded justification per GFR Rule 154.
17. GST treatment inconsistent — bidder A inclusive, bidder B exclusive; rates not comparable; should be normalised.
Companion formats: - BOQ Format PWD-style (FMT-TND-006) - Pre-Bid Query Register (FMT-TND-009) - Comparative Statement (FMT-TND-011) — alternative format - Letter of Intent (FMT-TND-013) - Letter of Award (FMT-TND-014) - Performance Bank Guarantee (FMT-TND-015) - Item Rate Analysis (PMC-PRC-FRM-011) — for star items in bids - Vendor Qualification (PMC-PRC-FRM-009)
Standards + references: - CPWD Works Manual 2019 — Chapter on Tender Evaluation; Paras 30-50 + 36 (arithmetic corrections) - General Financial Rules (GFR) 2017 — Chapter 6 + Rules 144-160 on procurement - Manual for Procurement of Works 2022 — MoF, GoI - CVC Tender Evaluation Guidelines — vigilance perspective - GeM (Government e-Marketplace) Guidelines — for e-procurement - NHAI Standard Bidding Documents — for highway projects - State PWD Codes / Manuals — state-specific procurement guidance - PSU Procurement Manuals — PSU-specific (NTPC / SAIL / NHAI / etc.) - FIDIC Tendering Procedures — international reference - World Bank / ADB / JICA Procurement Guidelines — for externally-funded projects