Supplier Bid Normalisation Worksheet

Supplier BidNormalisation Worksheet

Compare the same delivered duty, complete scope and evidence—not just the figure on the quotation.

1. Engineering answer: make the offers comparable before ranking them

Supplier bid normalisation puts competing compressor offers onto one defined technical and commercial basis. It identifies what each bidder actually supplies, whether the equipment meets the required duty, which costs remain with the buyer and how supported operating performance changes the cost of ownership. The lowest equipment price is not necessarily the lowest installed cost, and neither figure establishes that the proposed system can supply the required air.

A useful comparison therefore keeps three questions separate: Is the offer technically eligible? What additional scope is needed to make it comparable? What does that technically acceptable arrangement cost over the selected operating period? A low price cannot compensate for insufficient pressure, unsupported air quality or an unresolved electrical interface. Equally, an expensive offer should not receive a quality premium merely because its brochure is more elaborate.

The worksheet retains the original quotation beside every adjustment. It does not rewrite a supplier's promise or turn an estimate into a firm price. Each addition, credit, unit conversion and performance assumption needs a source, a responsible reviewer and a clear status. This makes the result useful during clarification, negotiation and final handover rather than only at the first price-comparison meeting.

The central rule is straightforward: compare complete, technically acceptable ways of delivering the same service. Where the evidence does not support equivalence, show the gap and the action required. Do not manufacture a single winning number from incomplete offers.

2. The decision this worksheet owns

This page connects those resources without reproducing their complete methods.

Use it for new compressor packages, replacement equipment, treatment upgrades and packaged plant proposals. Separate purchase, rental and service-only offers into appropriate commercial groups unless the enquiry explicitly permits alternative delivery models. A monthly hire price and a purchase price are not directly comparable merely because both refer to compressed air.

The written worksheets can be completed manually. The implementation section describes the future digital comparison tool, including validation and expected results; it does not imply that an automatic application already exists. No supplier is evaluated in this document. Bidder labels and numbers in the worked cases are fictional.

A completed evaluation can recommend an option, request revised offers or conclude that no bid is yet comparable. Those are all legitimate outcomes. Procurement award, contractual acceptance and approval of project-specific engineering remain separate decisions by the responsible people.

3. Freeze a common duty before reading the prices

Define the service at a named delivery point. Record required net airflow, pressure, reference conditions, air-quality requirement, operating hours, demand profile and continuity requirement. State whether the duty is measured, approved for design or still a planning assumption. A bidder must not be allowed to choose an easier duty while appearing to answer the same enquiry.

For a treated-air installation, distinguish compressor discharge from air available after dryer consumption, drains and any other defined internal use. Identify the pressure losses between the package and the required delivery point. For several machines, define the combination that must remain available during planned maintenance or a specified failure. Installed nameplate capacity is not the same as usable capacity in that operating case.

Keep future growth separate from the present requirement. A planned expansion can justify an additional scenario, but an unconfirmed future load should not silently alter the base-case ranking. Record minimum, typical and peak conditions where the control strategy and annual energy depend on them.

The common-duty record also needs site inputs: electrical supply, ambient range, intake conditions, cooling utilities, installation space and access. These are not decorative enquiry details. A nominally suitable compressor that cannot be cooled, connected or maintained within the actual room is not a complete solution.

4. Preserve original quotations and trace every extracted value

Give each offer a bidder ID, quotation number, revision, issue date, validity date and exact model/configuration identity. Preserve the original documents unchanged. Record the document page or paragraph supporting each material extracted value. A spreadsheet row saying “included” should lead back to an identifiable supplier statement, not to an analyst's recollection.

Keep extracted wording and normalised interpretation in separate fields. For example, “commissioning included” may mean one start-up visit, not performance testing, repeated attendance, training and the complete handover. Ask the supplier to define the boundary rather than assuming the broadest meaning.

One quotation can contain a base offer, an optional dryer, an alternative compressor and an optional service contract. Assign separate option identities and dependency rules. Do not assemble a fictional low-price offer by combining the cheapest line from mutually exclusive alternatives. A package discount conditional on purchasing the dryer cannot survive removal of that dryer unless the supplier confirms it.

When revised information arrives, identify what it supersedes. Preserve earlier prices and responses for traceability, but calculate the current comparison from one coherent revision set. Unanswered clarifications remain open; elapsed time does not turn them into acceptance.

5. Apply technical eligibility before financial scoring

Assess mandatory requirements individually. The worksheet uses the following proposed states so that missing evidence and proven failure are not confused. A bidder's declaration is useful input, but the evaluation must establish what evidence supports it.

Keep mandatory requirements outside any compensating weighted score. A bid failing the required pressure must not win because low price and short delivery outweigh that failure numerically. An accepted deviation is not an erased deviation: the final recommendation must show what changed and why.

For partial information, retain usable comparisons without overstating the outcome. It is possible to compare verified installation scope while holding energy ranking for missing part-load data. Avoid an all-or-nothing worksheet that either hides every useful fact or declares the entire offer acceptable prematurely.

6. Normalise airflow units without inventing performance

Record the offered flow, unit, reference pressure and temperature, humidity basis where relevant, measurement boundary and operating discharge pressure. “CFM” alone is insufficient. Identify whether the value represents displacement, free-air delivery or another defined convention before using it.

A unit conversion changes notation, not the equipment's operating point. For the same volumetric basis, the exact conversion derived from the international foot is:

Q(m³/min) = Q(ft³/min) × 0.028316846592

A converted value is comparable only when the original reference and measurement conditions also match. Converting cubic feet to cubic metres does not establish that a rating at one discharge pressure applies at another. Likewise, an air-volume reference conversion does not predict the compressor's actual capacity under changed intake conditions.

Use supplier-confirmed performance at the required duty or a documented applicable correction method. Retain the correction source and its limits. Where the evidence is absent, show “required-duty capacity not established.” Do not insert a universal altitude derating, pressure multiplier or assumed capacity margin merely to fill the comparison.

Published performance sheets can help structure the evidence. CAGI provides standardised data-sheet formats and a verification programme for specified equipment categories. Check the exact model, configuration, sheet notes and applicable verification status; a familiar format alone is not evidence that every item or installation has been independently tested. [R1]

7. Align pressure, package input and the electricity boundary

Record where pressure is required and whether values are gauge or absolute. Compare capacity and power at the same applicable operating pressure. A package rated at a lower pressure may look attractive while failing the process requirement after treatment and distribution losses. Do not compare a maximum pressure headline with a full-flow operating point as though they are interchangeable.

For electricity, distinguish nominal motor rating, motor electrical input, shaft power, total compressor-package input and total station input. Use the boundary required by the enquiry. If fans or pumps are already inside package input, do not add them again. If a separate dryer or cooling pump is outside it, include that load when the comparison concerns delivered treated air.

P_comparable = P_documented_boundary + Σ P_required_external_auxiliaries

The added quantities must represent compatible operating conditions. Do not add a fan motor's nominal rating to measured package power as though both were measured consumption. Mark estimates and request the missing supported value where material.

Specific power is a diagnostic ratio, not a substitute for duty compliance:

SP = P_comparable(kW) / Q_comparable(m³/min)

State the flow boundary beside the ratio. A package ratio and a net-treated-air ratio answer different questions. Do not rank bids across incompatible boundaries, and do not divide by zero flow. Annual energy still requires the demand profile and control response, not just the most favourable rated point.

8. Include treatment consumption and usable delivery

A compressor-plus-dryer offer needs an explicit treatment balance. Record corrected dryer capacity at the enquiry conditions, required pressure dew point or other specified quality parameters, pressure drop and regeneration utilities. A dryer nominally rated for the same airflow as the compressor may require a different selection at the actual inlet temperature or pressure. Use the selected model's evidence rather than a generic correction table.

For compatible reference-flow quantities and a steady or representative cycle-averaged balance, the proposed calculation is:

Q_net = Q_compressor − Q_purge − Q_other_defined_internal_consumption

Do not subtract an arbitrary leakage allowance from every bid. Include only identified internal consumption on the chosen boundary and basis. If purge varies by cycle, compare equivalent cycle-averaged or peak conditions according to the requirement; a momentary regeneration rate must not be mixed with an unrelated annual average.

A lower purge offer can require more heater or blower electricity. A lower-pressure-drop option may affect the required source pressure. Capture both effects on a coherent system model. Avoid claiming the full benefit of a pressure reduction unless the compressor controls and process requirement permit that reduction.

Quality capability, measured quality and a contractual quality commitment are distinct. An oil-free compressor description alone does not settle every downstream contaminant requirement. Record the actual specified parameter, location and evidence needed, and leave unresolved quality requirements visible.

9. Compare the operating profile, not isolated percentages

Require supported performance across the states that matter: full load, part load, unload, standby and stopped auxiliaries. For a multi-compressor station, compare how the complete arrangement serves each demand band. Do not assume that a variable-speed drive reduces total package power in direct proportion to airflow.

E_annual(kWh) = Σ [P_i(kW) × h_i(h)]

Each P_i should be the justified average power of that candidate arrangement while meeting the same demand state, and h_i should belong to one common schedule. The hours must not overlap. Additional off-production operation is a separate state, not an invisible allowance added to one bidder only.

Demand-band analysis is a screening model. If pressure storage, transitions or cycling materially influence performance, the model must capture them or identify the limitation. A collection of rated points cannot automatically establish the energy of frequent starts, unloading and blowdown.

Preserve the source of each power point: current supplier data, a witnessed test, a project model or an analyst estimate. If a critical band lies outside the supported range, do not silently extrapolate. Request a supported arrangement or report energy as incomplete. A quoted annual saving without the underlying hours, pressure and baseline is not an adequate input.

10. Map every installation interface to an owner

Normalise the physical scope from delivery through accepted operation. Compare freight, unloading, lifting, foundations, pipework, electrical connections, ventilation, cooling water, drains, controls integration and test provisions. Identify both the work and the party responsible. A line marked “by others” remains a project requirement; it does not become free.

Service space deserves its own review. Installed footprint may fit the room while filter replacement, motor withdrawal or airend removal does not. The worksheet should record the access requirement and any associated building or lifting work, not merely the equipment dimensions.

For brownfield work, identify reused infrastructure and the evidence that it is suitable. A supplier may assume adequate cable capacity, cooling flow or outlet piping without having inspected it. Record that assumption and the responsible confirmation. Do not label reused assets as fully compliant solely because they currently operate another machine.

Keep common site costs visible even where they do not change the ranking. The owner still needs a complete budget. Costs already included in another line must be cross-referenced rather than repeated. For shared infrastructure serving multiple projects, disclose the allocation method; one bidder must not carry the entire cost while another receives an unexplained partial allocation.

11. Compare commissioning, maintenance and support as defined deliverables

Ask what commissioning actually delivers: checks before start, operating adjustment, testing at specified duties, training, settings backup, manuals and final records. Record attendance limits, travel assumptions, prerequisites and responsibilities for retesting. A start-up visit is not automatically complete system acceptance.

For maintenance, compare supported service tasks, parts, fluids, labour, access and major interventions over the same horizon. Keep a supplier's fixed service offer separate from a buyer's estimated maintenance budget. Avoid a universal percentage of purchase price: two packages with similar prices can have very different service arrangements.

Warranty comparison needs scope, commencement, duration, operating-hour conditions, exclusions, consumables and required maintenance. Do not monetise a longer headline warranty without understanding what it covers. A warranty is not an assurance of uninterrupted production, and a nearby office is not a verified response commitment.

Treat parts support as an evidence question. Identify critical items, current lead-time statements, software access, diagnostic tools and support dependencies. Exact inventory and response promises require current supplier confirmation. The worksheet can expose these differences without inventing a monetary penalty for every concern. Unpriced support risks remain visible alongside financial results.

12. Establish a consistent commercial basis

Set the comparison currency, conversion date or approved rate source, price-validity rule, tax treatment, delivery boundary and payment convention. Preserve each original currency amount. A normalised currency value is an evaluation value, not a newly issued supplier quotation. No current exchange rate, tax rate or eligibility assumption is supplied by this page.

Separate the cash required to purchase from the economic cost adopted by finance. A recoverable tax can affect cash timing even when it is excluded from the selected economic-cost measure. The organisation's finance team should confirm treatment; the worksheet must not assume that every tax amount is recoverable or apply one jurisdiction's rules to all offers.

Discounts need their conditions. Record whether they depend on order timing, payment terms, a package combination or a minimum quantity. Do not apply a conditional discount to an incompatible scenario. Likewise, a quoted credit for deleting an option is different from the analyst's estimate of that option's value.

For imported equipment, record the quoted delivery terms and specifically identify freight, insurance, duties, handling and local installation responsibilities without inferring them from a vague “delivered” label. Keep uncertain amounts as documented estimates or open items. Do not rank a firm local scope against an incomplete import price with missing costs silently set to zero.

13. Calculate the comparable cost with an adjustment ledger

Use a signed adjustment ledger rather than overwriting the quotation total. The proposed cost build-up is:

C_normalised = C_quoted − D_confirmed − K_confirmed + Σ A_required + C_owner_specific

C_quoted is the selected offer's price on the stated commercial basis. D_confirmed contains applicable discounts. K_confirmed contains supported deletion credits not already deducted. A_required contains additions necessary for the common scope. C_owner_specific captures candidate-dependent owner work not already included. All terms use the same currency and tax basis.

Give every adjustment an ID, scope description, quantity, source, date, status and inclusion flag. An allowance may be useful for planning, but a provisional allowance is not a firm revised price. Maintain “supported comparable cost” and “scenario cost including estimates” as distinguishable outputs where that separation affects the decision.

Keep contingency separate from known scope gaps. A missing dryer is a defined requirement to price, not a general contingency. Do not add both a specific known addition and a contingency specifically intended to cover that same addition. Similarly, do not deduct an unwanted bundled item unless it can actually be removed or credited under the supplier's terms.

If a mandatory unpriced item remains open, the displayed subtotal must say it is incomplete. A blank is not zero. A financially precise answer based on incomplete scope is less useful than a bounded comparison that shows what information would change the ranking.

14. Carry comparable bids into lifecycle economics

Once technical eligibility and scope are established, compare the relevant cash costs over one study period. Separate initial cost, annual energy, maintenance, scheduled replacement, other supported costs and residual proceeds. Discount each cash flow to the same date using an approved and consistently applied method. [S1; R2]

LCC_j = C0_j + Σ[(E_t,j × tariff_t + M_t,j + O_t,j + R_t,j) / (1 + r)^t] − S_N,j / (1 + r)^N

Here C0 is initial installed cost; E is electricity use; M is maintenance; O is other included cost; R is a distinct replacement or overhaul cost; S is net residual proceeds; r is the discount rate; and N is the common horizon. The equation assumes annual end-of-period cash flows and a time-zero initial cost. Use dated cash-flow methods where payment timing matters materially.

Do not include a replacement cost twice through both a service contract and a separate overhaul line. Use consistent real/nominal treatment and do not discount physical airflow or kWh. Financial assumptions belong to the organisation; the illustrative rate in a worked example is not a recommended hurdle rate.

Keep non-monetised issues beside the cost result. Technical risk, unresolved evidence or a critical delivery condition should not disappear merely because a lifecycle column has a number.

15. Treat delivery readiness and interim supply explicitly

Record the event from which lead time starts: order acceptance, advance payment, drawing approval or another stated trigger. Distinguish dispatch, arrival, installation completion and readiness for service. A twelve-week dispatch promise is not a twelve-week operating solution.

Where an alternative requires temporary air before it is ready, define the bridge period and the complete support scope. Include mobilisation, rental, treatment, connections, fuel or electricity, operators and demobilisation where relevant. Do not assume availability, compatibility or instant mobilisation. Obtain evidence for the contingency itself.

Bridge duration = max(0, supported service-ready time − required service date)

Bridge cost = fixed bridge charges + applicable time-based charges + other defined bridge costs

Apply the fixed charge only when the bridge is required. Commercial billing may use whole weeks, minimum terms or dated periods; the model must state which convention it uses. A simple weekly example does not override actual hire terms.

Payment schedules can also alter comparable cost. If financing effects are included, discount actual scheduled payments rather than additionally charging the same advance-payment burden as a separate penalty. Keep supply risk separate from time-value arithmetic. An attractive deferred payment is not evidence that the supplier can meet the required delivery date.

16. Keep uncertainty visible instead of inventing penalties

Separate missing evidence, measurement uncertainty, price uncertainty and future operating uncertainty. They require different responses. Missing capacity at the required pressure requires technical clarification; an uncertain electricity price requires a financial scenario. One generic “risk percentage” conceals the distinction.

Use low, base and high cases only with stated inputs. An interval based on analyst assumptions is a scenario range, not a statistical confidence interval. Run the same scenario logic for every eligible candidate. Avoid favourable hours for one bidder and unfavourable hours for another unless the equipment's actual supported constraints justify the difference.

Check whether the cost ranking changes within plausible assumptions. If it does, report the switching condition and which evidence would resolve it. Do not imply certainty from a small cost difference overwhelmed by unresolved installation scope.

Keep the original comparison fixed when reviewing later revisions. Improved information may change the recommendation, but the earlier rationale should remain reproducible. The point is not to defend the first ranking; it is to make the final decision traceable to the information genuinely available.

17. Use scoring only where it clarifies a real decision

After mandatory eligibility, an organisation may use a weighted score for factors not adequately represented in cost. Define the criteria, evidence anchors and weights before evaluating offers. “Excellent support” is not a reproducible criterion unless the evidence required for that rating is described. The following calculation is a proposed worksheet method, not an industry-mandated scoring system.

Weighted score = Σ[w_k × (s_k / s_max,k)], with Σw_k = 100

Scores must use the defined range. Missing evidence must not receive an average score by default. Mark it unresolved and follow the predeclared rule for whether ranking can proceed. Do not renormalise weights silently after discovering that a favoured bidder has no answer to a difficult criterion.

Avoid double-counting the same advantage. If lower electricity use already reduces lifecycle cost, an additional energy-efficiency score can reward it twice. If maintainability is scored, explain what non-monetised feature remains outside the maintenance-cost calculation.

A price-only score can be displayed for eligible comparable costs, but it cannot repair a technical failure. Report the cost result, non-price assessment and remaining conditions separately. The recommendation should explain the trade-off in ordinary language rather than asking the buyer to trust a composite number that hides the underlying evidence.

18. Worked example A: the lowest quotation becomes the higher installed cost

This fictional case compares two technically eligible offers for the same compressor-and-treatment scope. Every amount is in INR lakh; one lakh equals INR 100,000. The quoted values, additions and discounts are illustrative, with a common economic-tax basis assumed. No current supplier price is asserted.

A begins INR 4.00 lakh below B on the original quotation. After the supported additions and discounts, B is INR 3.00 lakh lower on the common installed scope. A's net increase from original quote to comparable cost is INR 8.50 lakh; B's is INR 1.50 lakh.

“Included” contributes no additional cost here because the fictional supplier evidence explicitly confirms inclusion in the quoted price. It is not a substitute for missing information. If B's commissioning scope were unclear, that row would be a clarification, not automatically zero.

The conclusion is limited to installed cost under this scope. Energy, maintenance, schedule and support still need comparison. Shared site works omitted equally from this differential example must be restored to the full project budget; excluding a genuinely common cost can preserve ranking without making the subtotal a complete funding request.

19. Worked example B: unit conversion cannot cure a duty shortfall

Assume a common requirement of at least 20.00 m³/min net treated air at a named delivery point. The fictional pressure budget requires compressor performance at 8.0 bar(g). All flow values in this example use the same agreed reference-air basis. Internal consumption values are supported cycle averages for the example's duty.

B's unit conversion is 750 × 0.028316846592 = 21.237634944 m³/min. Its net flow is 20.237634944 m³/min, a 1.1882% margin over the stated minimum. A's shortfall is 1.5%. The example assumes the supplied values are suitable for this screening decision; a real acceptance rule must also address guarantees, tolerances and uncertainty.

C cannot be credited with 22.00 m³/min at 8.0 bar(g) just because its brochure lists that flow elsewhere. Request the required operating-point evidence. A mathematical conversion of reference volume would not establish the missing compressor performance.

Suppose A and B have comparable total input powers of 124 and 126 kW respectively. Their diagnostic net-flow ratios are about 6.2944 and 6.2260 kW per m³/min. These ratios do not override A's capacity failure or establish annual energy. Eligibility remains separate from an apparently favourable efficiency number, and a small supported capacity margin must not be advertised as guaranteed future expansion capacity.

20. Worked example C: the load profile reverses the full-load impression

This independent fictional comparison uses candidates X and Y, both assumed technically suitable for every listed demand state. The power values represent supported average total input for each arrangement at that state, including the agreed auxiliaries. They are not nominal motor ratings or invented linear interpolation from one rated point.

X uses less power in the highest-demand band, but Y uses 53,000 kWh less across the specified year. Both deliver the same modelled annual reference volume: 60 × [(15 × 1,500) + (10 × 2,500) + (5 × 2,000)] = 3,450,000 m³. The volume calculation verifies a common service basis; it does not establish actual annual production.

Assume installed costs of INR 2,800,000 for X and INR 3,200,000 for Y. Use an illustrative constant electricity price of INR 9/kWh, annual maintenance of INR 100,000 for X and INR 135,000 for Y, five years and a 10% discount rate. All recurring cash flows occur at year end. These are constant-price assumptions with a consistent real discount rate; no current tariff or recommended investment rate is implied. No residual-value difference or additional overhaul is included in this limited comparison.

Y's annual energy-cost advantage is INR 477,000. Its additional maintenance is INR 35,000, leaving INR 442,000 annual net advantage. The five-year present-value factor is 3.790786769. X's modelled lifecycle cost is INR 16,825,911; Y's is INR 15,550,383. Y's lower present cost is therefore INR 1,275,528 after its INR 400,000 higher initial cost.

A simple incremental payback is 400,000 / 442,000 = 0.905 years, but that screening ratio does not replace the full cash-flow comparison. Now reduce annual hours to 1,000 while preserving the same demand-band proportions and the stated fixed annual maintenance difference. Energy advantage falls to 8,833.33 kWh/year. Y's five-year net present advantage becomes approximately −INR 231,310: X is then lower cost under those assumptions.

The annual-hours break-even is approximately 1,768 hours for this fixed profile and cost model. It is not a universal compressor threshold. Changes to service intervals, demand mix, price, useful life or control response require recalculation. This sensitivity demonstrates why a technically valid decision cannot be based on a full-load efficiency headline alone.

21. Worked example D: include the bridge to service readiness

Assume the plant needs its new air supply ready in week 12. Bid D has an installed price of INR 4.00 million and a supported service-ready date in week 20. Bid E costs INR 4.25 million and is service-ready in week 14. These fictional dates include the specified installation and commissioning, rather than dispatch alone.

For illustration, a technically suitable interim system is available at INR 0.06 million per week plus INR 0.08 million fixed mobilisation and demobilisation charges. The weekly amount is assumed to cover all relevant recurring bridge costs on the selected scope. Actual availability and billing terms must be confirmed in a real comparison.

Although E's installed equipment price is INR 0.25 million higher, its reduced bridge duration makes this combined comparison INR 0.11 million lower. This is a simple undiscounted schedule scenario, not a complete lifecycle ranking or a supplier-delivery guarantee.

Do not also add a production-loss charge for the same hours if the assumed bridge fully maintains the required service. Any residual interruption, mobilisation delay or quality limitation needs a separate supported scenario. If the bridge is unavailable or unsuitable, do not merely increase its price allowance; the proposed service plan itself remains unresolved.

22. Turn the comparison into a decision and a clarification list

The recommendation should name the eligible alternatives, identify the comparison basis and explain the material trade-offs. Distinguish the lowest original price, lowest comparable installed cost and lowest modelled lifecycle cost. They may belong to different offers. State whether each finding is firm, conditional or based on a scenario.

Write clarifications as answerable questions. Instead of “confirm performance,” ask for the exact offered model's net delivery at the stated pressure and reference conditions, with included auxiliaries and the supporting data revision. Instead of “confirm installation,” list the unresolved interfaces and request inclusion, exclusion and price for each.

Before negotiation closes, reconcile the selected bid with the evaluated configuration. Check that discounts have not removed the dryer, controls, test obligations or service support that justified selection. Carry accepted deviations and unresolved conditions into the final technical attachment rather than burying them in meeting notes.

For a Reddy Compressors enquiry, provide the common-duty sheet, complete quotations, model data, exclusions, proposed site interfaces and the required service date. Redact confidential information not needed for review. This worksheet helps organise an evidence-based comparison; it is not permission to place an order or an assurance that every listed supplier or service is available.

23. Editable worksheet A: common duty and requirement comparison

Copy this table for each enquiry. Replace the entry prompts with project information. Keep requirement IDs stable across quotation revisions. This is a manually editable Word worksheet; it does not calculate or validate automatically.

Do not mark a requirement complete merely because a file is attached. Record the relevant statement and its applicability to the selected configuration. An unresolved mandatory item prevents a clean eligible status even if other rows are satisfactory.

24. Editable worksheet B: scope and commercial adjustment ledger

Use one row per adjustment and copy the table for additional bidders. Keep additions and credits distinguishable. Each row needs both an amount and its basis; a well-formatted empty table is not a completed cost evaluation.

Retain an evidence reference for every material estimate and the reason it is necessary. Where a figure cannot be established, name the missing item and the effect on ranking. Do not force a total by inserting a nominal amount unsupported by the enquiry or supplier record.

25. Editable worksheet C: comparable results and award conditions

Use this summary only after completing the underlying duty and adjustment records. Add bidders as needed. The summary must retain the distinction between technical eligibility, firm scope costs and modelled lifecycle results.

Issue a dated comparison snapshot. Attach the chosen configuration, accepted deviations, clarification closure and the requirements that must survive into the purchase order. A later revision should explain changes rather than overwrite the earlier evaluation history.

26. Questions buyers and engineers ask

Is the cheapest quotation always the best commercial offer?

No. It may exclude required treatment, controls, freight, installation or commissioning. Compare complete eligible scope first. The lowest installed cost can still differ from the lowest lifecycle cost when operating hours and supported performance are considered.

Can two compressors with the same motor kW be treated as equivalent?

No. Motor rating does not establish delivered airflow, pressure, package electrical consumption, air quality or control performance. Compare the offered operating points and configuration against the common duty, with evidence for included auxiliaries.

Can CFM be converted directly to m³/min?

Yes, as a unit conversion on the same volumetric basis: multiply ft³/min by 0.028316846592. That conversion does not resolve different reference conditions, measurement boundaries or discharge-pressure ratings. Those remain separate comparison requirements.

What should happen when a required item is missing from a bid?

Record it as excluded, unclear or not offered according to the evidence. Obtain a supported addition or retain an explicit unpriced gap. Do not assume it is included and do not substitute zero. If the item affects mandatory duty, hold eligibility as well as cost completeness.

Does a performance data sheet replace site acceptance?

No. Model-level evidence supports equipment comparison; installed acceptance addresses the actual supplied configuration, interfaces and agreed tests. A standard data-sheet format is not blanket certification of every claim. [S1, S2; R1]

Should every uncertainty be converted into a percentage penalty?

No. A penalty can conceal an unresolved technical issue or double-count a cost already included. Separate known additions, documented scenarios, non-monetised risks and mandatory evidence gaps. Any formal risk valuation needs a stated method and appropriate review.

Is variable-speed equipment always cheaper to operate?

No conclusion follows from the drive label alone. Compare supported input power while meeting the same demand states, including low-load behaviour and auxiliaries. Example C shows how hours and demand mix can change the economic preference.

Can taxes and financing be ignored to simplify comparison?

Only where the selected comparison purpose justifies the stated exclusions. Finance must define the consistent economic and cash-flow treatment. Do not assume recovery, invent rates or count the same financing effect in both discounted payments and a separate penalty.

Can a low price offset a mandatory technical failure in a score?

Not in this worksheet. Mandatory duty and evidence requirements are assessed before compensating scores. Any accepted deviation requires an explicit authorised change and must remain visible in the final recommendation.

What should be sent for a useful bid-comparison review?

Provide the enquiry duty, all offer revisions and alternatives, exact model data, inclusions and exclusions, proposed utilities and interfaces, service-ready dates and common operating assumptions. Identify unresolved statements. A list of prices alone cannot support technical normalisation or a dependable recommendation.