Before you award — know what's in the tender and what isn't

Every tender contains risk — it's just a question of who carries it. When contractors submit pricing for building services, they include qualifications, assumptions, and exclusions. Some are reasonable; some shift significant scope and cost back to the client. Without a technical review, those qualifications may not surface until the variation claim arrives.

MRGN reviews tender submissions from an engineering perspective, on the client's side. We compare what each bidder has priced against what the specification requires, identify scope gaps, assess whether proposed substitutions are genuinely equivalent, and produce a side-by-side comparison so the client can make an informed award decision.

What we check

• Scope completeness — does each bid cover the full scope, or are there gaps that will become variations?
• Technical compliance — are the proposed systems and equipment equivalent to the specification, or are bidders offering lower-spec alternatives?
• Qualifications and exclusions — what has each bidder excluded, assumed, or qualified, and what's the cost and risk implication?
• Pricing anomalies — are there line items that look too low (risk of later claims) or too high (overpricing)?

This service is particularly valuable when multiple disciplines are tendered as separate packages, the specification is performance-based, there is a wide spread between the lowest and highest bid, or the client doesn't have in-house engineering capability to evaluate technical submissions.

When services are tendered as separate packages, the risk is at the interfaces — where electrical meets mechanical, where fire services penetrations affect hydraulics, where BMS scope spans multiple trade packages. MRGN reviews the full services tender set with an understanding of how the disciplines connect. See our full design offering.