Why do Burao tender bids promise impossible completion dates?

Bid program reviews in Burao often pass a completion date that no crew on the ground can meet. The programme looks tidy on paper, the price is low, and the dates are tight. The gap sits in the review itself: nobody checks whether the bidder has the skills, the plant and the material supply to hold that date. When the work starts, the schedule slips, the client pays twice for rework, and the contractor blames the market.

What does a bid program review actually check in Burao?

A bid program review checks whether the dates in the tender match the resources the bidder can actually put on site. That means three checks, done together, not one after the other. First, read the method statement and ask which trade does which task, in what order. Second, ask for the crew list and the CVs or reference sites for the foreman and the key trades. Third, ask for the equipment list with ownership or hire evidence. A date without those three behind it is a wish, not a program.

For a building in Burao, ask the bidder to show how many masons, carpenters and steel fixers will be on site each week, and where they worked before. Ask where the cement, steel and aggregates will come from, and what happens if a delivery is late. Ask the municipal engineer's office what permit or inspection steps sit in the programme, since those dates can shift the whole schedule. Do not accept a bar chart with no resource loading behind it.

Why do unrealistic completion promises survive the review?

Unrealistic completion promises survive because the review scores the document, not the delivery capacity behind it. A bidder who has never run a job of that size can still write a clean programme. If the evaluation panel has no engineer who has built in the region, the panel has no way to test the claim. The skills gap is in the reviewer, not only the bidder.

The second reason is time. A short tender window pushes panels to score price and dates and leave method and resources for later. The third is that the same few contractors bid for many jobs, so a low bid with a fast date wins on paper while the crew is already committed elsewhere. Ask each bidder to state how many active sites they hold and who supervises each one. That answer, written into the bid, is the cheapest test you have. Confirm any regulatory step with the office that issues it, not with the bidder.

How do you close the gap before award?

Close the gap by making the programme a contract document with named people and dated updates. Before award, ask for a one-page resource schedule: crew numbers by trade, plant on site, and material delivery dates. Ask the bidder to name the site agent and the foreman, with a short record of comparable work. Score that schedule alongside price.

After award, require a weekly update against the same schedule, and walk the site to compare the crew on the ground with the crew in the document. A shortfall shows up in days, not months. If the contract allows, make the named key staff and the equipment list part of the agreement, so a swap needs your written agreement. Check what your contract allows before you rely on that clause. For public work, ask the procuring office which documents it will enforce, and copy that wording into your own tender.

What to do next

Take one live tender and ask each bidder for a resource-loaded programme: crew by trade, plant by week, material delivery dates and the named site agent. Score that against price before you award. If the programme and the resources do not match, ask the bidder to revise or explain in writing, and record the answer in the tender file.