Interactive tender assessment

FIDIC Tender Risk Lab

Assess a tender before pricing: where risk hides in Contract Data, Particular Conditions, guarantees, ESHS, notices, DAAB, payment and design responsibility.

Start assessment Discuss a tender

Live risk console

Scope & Contract Data 0%

Price, payment & securities 0%

Time, notices & claims 0%

ESHS, DAAB & governance 0%

Contract Data and Particular Conditions

Scope & Contract Data

Are key fields completed and aligned with the General Conditions?

Fields are completed, references align, version control is clear Some gaps or unclear references, but limited Edition conflict, blank fields or contradictory clauses

Scope, drawings and Employer’s Requirements

Scope & Contract Data

Are works, drawings, standards and completion criteria clear enough?

Scope is measurable, drawings are versioned, completion criteria are clear Assumptions remain around quantities, interfaces or standards Scope is immature, drawings conflict or completion criteria are vague

Design responsibility

Scope & Contract Data

Is it clear who carries design, design review and fitness-for-purpose risk?

Design responsibility and review procedure are clear Mixed design responsibility or incomplete Employer’s Requirements Design risk is shifted without clear procedure or data

Price basis and payment mechanism

Price, payment & securities

Do price, BoQ, milestones, IPC and payment timing work without hidden cash-flow gaps?

Payment mechanism, measurement and IPC cycle are workable Cash-flow gaps, unclear milestones or measurement assumptions High payment risk: unclear BoQ, delayed certification or aggressive deductions

Securities, guarantees and liquidated damages

Price, payment & securities

Are Performance Security, advance guarantee, retention and delay damages proportionate?

Amounts, durations and forms look standard Strict forms, extended validity or unclear release triggers Securities/LADs may create disproportionate exposure or cash trap

Time for Completion and access

Time, notices & claims

Are dates, access, permits, handover and third-party dependencies realistic?

Access, milestones and constraints are priced and schedulable Dependency assumptions exist but can be described Critical access/permit/interface risks are outside Contractor control

Notices and communication channels

Time, notices & claims

Is it clear who sends notices, through which channel, and how 28/84-day deadlines are controlled?

Channels, authorised persons and deadline workflow are clear Procedure exists but no internal notice register yet Notice channel, service rules or time-bars are unclear or aggressive

Claims, records and substantiation

Time, notices & claims

Can the team keep evidence files for EOT, disruption and prolongation costs from day one?

Records, programme updates and cost evidence are planned Records exist partly, but evidence architecture needs work Claims procedure requires records the team is not ready to keep

ESHS and MDB compliance

ESHS, DAAB & governance

Are ESHS obligations, reporting, consequences and resources understood?

ESHS obligations mapped to staff, reports and cost Bank-specific obligations exist but resources/cost are not fully priced ESHS scope is heavy, penalties/reporting unclear, resources not priced

Engineer, DAAB and dispute pathway

ESHS, DAAB & governance

Does the Engineer determination, DAAB, amicable settlement and arbitration chain work?

Roles, appointment and dispute escalation are coherent Open points on DAAB appointment, costs or timelines Dispute pathway is fragmented or board mechanics are unclear

Procurement integrity and tender strategy

ESHS, DAAB & governance

Are evaluation criteria, deviations policy, conflict rules and rejection grounds clear?

Evaluation method and compliance rules are clear Ambiguity around scoring, deviations or experience evidence Bid may fail on compliance/evaluation, not price

Local administration assumptions

ESHS, DAAB & governance

Are assumptions on permits, tax/admin interface, import, visas and local approvals identified cautiously?

Assumptions identified and assigned to owners Local admin assumptions need verification before award Price depends on unverified local assumptions

Live risk console

Controlled tender package

0 /100

The baseline structure looks manageable. Still check Particular Conditions, Contract Data and commercial assumptions before pricing.

Tender risk low

Risk heatmap

Scope & Contract Data 0%

Price, payment & securities 0%

Time, notices & claims 0%

ESHS, DAAB & governance 0%

Clarification questions

Next actions

Request pre-bid review

Bridge Consult can run a pre-bid review: contract form, Contract Data, Particular Conditions, securities, claims workflow and tender clarification questions.

World Bank Section VIII Notice Register workflow Knowledge Hub

This is a practical screening tool, not legal advice. The result depends on tender documents, Particular Conditions, applicable law, procurement rules and project facts.