A template for comparing different bid submissions side by side to identify the best option based on criteria such as cost, timeline, and vendor reliability
Bid Comparison Template
Purpose:
The Bid Comparison Template is a standardized SayPro tool designed to facilitate an objective and transparent comparison of multiple bid submissions. This template provides a clear, side-by-side matrix view of critical evaluation criteria, helping procurement teams identify the most suitable bid based on cost, timeline, vendor reliability, and other weighted factors. Within the SayPro Monthly January SCMR-1: SayPro Monthly Bid Evaluation, this template is a key input in the decision-making and recommendation phase.
Structure and Components of the Template
1. Overview Section
- Project Name:
- Bid Reference Number:
- Date of Bid Opening:
- Department/Project Lead:
- Number of Bidders:
- Evaluation Panel Members:
2. Bid Comparison Matrix Table
This table is the core of the template and compares each bid submission side by side across defined evaluation parameters.
| Criteria | Bidder A | Bidder B | Bidder C | Comments/Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Cost (ZAR) | R 850,000 | R 890,000 | R 870,000 | All within budget range |
| Breakdown of Costs | Attached | Attached | Attached | Includes VAT and contingency |
| Project Timeline (Weeks) | 10 weeks | 8 weeks | 9 weeks | Bidder B offers fastest delivery |
| Compliance Score | 95% | 88% | 97% | Bidder C excels in compliance |
| Technical Score | 85% | 80% | 90% | Bidder C presents strong method |
| Vendor Experience | 5 similar projects | 3 similar projects | 6 similar projects | Bidder C has most relevant work |
| References / Past Performance | Good | Satisfactory | Excellent | Bidder C has stellar reviews |
| Warranty / After-Sales | 12 months | 6 months | 12 months | Bidder A & C offer full warranty |
| Payment Terms | 50/50 | 40/60 | 30/70 | Bidder C provides flexible terms |
| B-BBEE Level | Level 2 | Level 1 | Level 3 | Bidder B has highest B-BBEE rank |
3. Scoring and Weighted Totals
Each category is assigned a weight based on project priorities. Scores are converted into percentages, and a total weighted score is calculated per bidder.
| Evaluation Area | Weight (%) | Bidder A | Bidder B | Bidder C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | 30% | 25.5 | 24 | 26.1 |
| Timeline | 15% | 12 | 15 | 13.5 |
| Technical Quality | 25% | 21.25 | 20 | 22.5 |
| Vendor Reliability | 20% | 16 | 14 | 19 |
| Compliance | 10% | 9.5 | 8.8 | 9.7 |
| Total Score | 100% | 84.25 | 81.8 | 90.8 |
4. Summary of Findings
- Bidder A: Competitive pricing, but slightly lower technical and vendor reliability scores.
- Bidder B: Fastest delivery time and strongest B-BBEE rating, but lower past performance scores.
- Bidder C: Overall best value with highest technical and compliance scores and best vendor track record.
5. Recommendation Section
Based on the comparative analysis using the Bid Comparison Template, Bidder C is recommended for award due to the highest total weighted score, superior vendor reliability, and strong technical proposal, despite a marginally higher cost than the lowest bidder.
Integration in SayPro Monthly January SCMR-1
In the SayPro Monthly January SCMR-1: SayPro Monthly Bid Evaluation, the Bid Comparison Template plays a pivotal role by:
- Supporting Transparent Decision-Making:
All evaluation decisions and justifications are clearly traceable through comparative metrics. - Providing Audit Readiness:
A documented, evidence-based decision-making trail is maintained, aligning with SayPro’s compliance and procurement governance standards. - Facilitating Strategic Insights:
Monthly patterns and bidder performance trends identified in comparison tables feed into broader SCMR insights and help improve future RFP designs.
Best Practices for Use
- Always validate cost breakdowns against project scope to prevent under-quoting.
- Adjust weightings per project priorities (e.g., prioritize technical quality for complex services).
- Ensure inclusion of both quantitative (cost, time) and qualitative (experience, references) criteria.
- Archive comparison templates with contract documentation for auditing and lessons learned reviews.
Leave a Reply