Synthetic worked example
Illustrative case study: is the tender ready for review?
An illustrative tender review connecting drawing revisions, quantities, rate evidence, programme assumptions and contract queries to a human decision checklist.
ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO. All project records are invented. This is not a customer project, recorded service execution or measured performance result. It explains human review, not the readiness of a real bid.
The problem: many files, one submission decision
Imagine a contractor reviewing a tender before submission. The team has a BOQ, drawings, specifications and contract conditions, but some drawings are newer than the quantities, some rates lack evidence, and site staff have not confirmed the durations. Adding up the totals does not answer whether the bid is ready.
The purpose of this invented scenario is to turn those gaps into specific questions and responsibilities. Extracting a quantity or generating a rate or programme does not establish approval.
Start with a document and scope register
The team fixes a review date and records each document revision, item reference and included work area. If a drawing revision differs from a quantity reference, the mismatch remains an open issue rather than an unexplained choice of number.
- Gather authorised drawings, specifications, the BOQ and tender addenda.
- Link items to measurement references and record uncertain quantities and exclusions.
- Keep the original files and record the reviewer, decision and supporting document.
How can the CAIS workflows help?
The service pages explain quantity take-off, pricing, planning and contract administration. The team chooses the appropriate workflow and required inputs, then reviews the outputs together in its tender register. This example does not assume the services were executed or automatically connected into one process.
Experimental QTO quantities need independent validation before pricing. Pricing starts with reviewable quantities and scope, followed by rate evidence checks. The planner reviews sequence, resources and calendars; the contract reviewer checks obligations, exclusions and queries.
A review output with an evidence trail
The scenario ends with a review register, not an automated certificate that the bid is fit for submission.
| Open issue | Evidence needed | Responsible reviewer |
|---|---|---|
| Quantity refers to an older drawing | Current drawing revision and measurement note | Quantity surveyor |
| Rate lacks a current reference | Scope-appropriate quotation or disclosed assumption | Estimator |
| Duration not confirmed by site staff | Productivity, resource and calendar basis | Planner and delivery team |
| Unresolved contractual obligation | Relevant clause, query and response | Contract reviewer |
Before submission
The bid lead reviews open issues and their effect on price, time and scope, identifying what is resolved, what needs clarification and what requires a human decision to defer or qualify. An authorised person checks the final submission and attachments.
The example makes no turnaround, accuracy or savings promise and provides no market rates or commercial recommendation. For the public pricing trial, use an invented practice file: it prices an existing Excel or CSV BOQ; it is not a drawing take-off trial or an integrated tender execution.