What does the working table show?
Illustrative example. Replace each heading with the actual approved project scope and supplier responses.
| Field | Evidence needed | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Supply boundary | Interfaces and accessories | Included or excluded |
| Testing | Factory and site scope | Evidence and cost |
| Documents | Drawings and manuals | Delivery format |
| Commercial | Currency and validity | Buyer review |
How should the comparison basis be controlled?
A source-linked comparison reduces ambiguity. FAR 13.106-2 gives a public-sector example of using the factors announced in the solicitation; it is not a private-tender mandate.
The cited FAR provisions govern specified US federal simplified acquisitions, not ordinary private engineering tenders. They are an example of disclosing the evaluation basis and evaluating against the solicitation.
Sources: Acquisition.gov: FAR 13.106-2, Evaluation of quotations or offers
What should stay open?
Record unanswered supplier questions, divergent assumptions and missing documents in a clarification log. The engineering and commercial leads approve the final comparison.
Common questions
What else should the bid team know?
Can a missing supplier response be treated as compliant?
No. Mark it open and ask for clarification.
Does the table recommend an award?
No. It structures evidence for the buyer's decision.
Who approves technical compliance?
The responsible project engineer reviews technical compliance and performs any engineering sign-off.
Primary sources
- FAR 13.106-1, Soliciting competitionAcquisition.gov
- FAR 13.106-2, Evaluation of quotations or offersAcquisition.gov
- Request for Quotation formUS General Services Administration