In brief
- A bid program review checks the submitted schedule against evidence of people, plant and past work, not against the wording of the promise.
- Unrealistic completion promises survive review when the assessment scores documents instead of testing them against dated records.
- Ask every bidder for the same short evidence list, then walk one recent site and speak to the client before you score competency.
Contents
A bid program review in Qardho answers one question: can this bidder actually deliver the submitted schedule with the people, plant and cash they have? When the review scores the proposal document instead of the evidence behind it, unverified capability and unrealistic completion promises pass into the contract. The risk sits in the gap between what a bid claims and what a reviewer can check.
What does a bid program review in Qardho actually test?
It tests the link between the programme and the resources named against each activity. A bar chart on its own proves nothing. For each trade, the submission should name the supervisor, the crew size, the main plant item and the source of materials, so the reviewer can compare the promised output with the same bidder's record on earlier work. General practice in tender evaluation is to score three things separately: the method, the resources committed to it, and the evidence that both have been used before. Confirm the scoring method against the tender document and the client's own evaluation procedure before opening bids. Where a claim cannot be traced to a name, a machine or a dated record, it belongs in a clarification request, not in the competency score.
How do unrealistic completion promises survive review?
They survive because the review asks for a programme and gets one, without asking what the programme assumes. A bid can show a fast finish while hiding that it assumes one crew working two trades at once, plant that is not in Puntland, or a materials supply that has not been ordered. The mechanism is simple: the assessment rewards completeness of paperwork, and paperwork is cheap to produce. Reviewers under time pressure then compare bids on price and duration rather than on evidence. Ask each bidder for the assumptions behind the critical activities: how many crews, which plant, which supplier, and what happens to the finish date if the first delivery slips. Ask the municipal engineer's office whether any local records exist for similar works, and check the bidder's programme against the rainfall pattern for the Gu and Deyr seasons when external work stops.
How do you verify competency claims before award?
You verify by making the same short evidence list mandatory for every bidder and checking it the same way. A workable list is: a dated programme with named supervisors; CVs and role history for the site team; plant owned or under a written hire agreement; two recent comparable projects with client contact details; and test or inspection records from those projects. Then do three things. Call the named clients and ask whether the bidder finished on the promised date. Walk one recent site and look at what was built, not what is described. Ask for the concrete test records or inspection sheets from that job. In Qardho, travel and site access add time, so build these checks into the tender period. Keep a written note of every claim that could not be verified and issue it as a clarification.
What to do next
Take the last tender you evaluated and list every competency claim that had no evidence attached. Turn that list into a one-page mandatory submission for the next tender, covering names, plant, dated records and client contacts. Send it to bidders with the documents, and agree with the evaluation panel how each item will be scored before bids are opened.
Frequently asked questions
Can a client reject a bid because the programme looks unrealistic?
Check what the tender document and the client's evaluation rules allow. The safer route is usually a clarification request: ask the bidder to justify the critical activities with resources and dates, then record the answer in the evaluation report.
What evidence should a bidder provide for plant?
Ask for ownership papers or a written hire agreement naming the machine and the period, plus where it is currently working. A photograph of plant does not show who controls it or when it can reach Qardho.
Who keeps local records that can help verify a bidder?
Ask the municipal engineer's office whether it holds records or contacts for earlier works of a similar type, and ask the bidder's named clients directly. Confirm what is available locally before you write the evidence list into the tender.
Local reporting: this article is written for building work in Qardho and Puntland. Ground conditions, prices and rules differ between places; confirm the details for your own site.