Afectus Energy
← All case studies
Case StudySample Study

Technical Bid Evaluation Before an Investment Decision

A sample study showing how three contractor bids for a solar+BESS investment were assessed on the owner's side using a comparable technical criteria set. All figures and bid details are representative and marked as a sample scenario.

Context and project profile

Three contractor bids were received for a mid-size solar+BESS investment (sample values). The bids differed in equipment brands, warranty scope, and commissioning timeline — price alone wasn't enough for comparison. The question: how can the bids be fairly compared from the owner's technical risk and lifecycle cost perspective?

Data inputs

The assessment was built by reviewing all three bids' compliance with the technical specification, equipment technical documentation, and draft contracts. Each bid was assessed against the same criteria set.

  • Technical specification compliance check for all three bids
  • Equipment warranty scope and performance guarantee comparison
  • Draft commissioning and test plans
  • Contract risk clauses (delay, performance shortfall)

Analysis Screen — Bid Comparison

Sample Study

BidSpec ComplianceWarranty ScopeRisk Note
Bid AFully compliant5-year equipment + 2-year performanceLow — clean scope
Bid BPartially compliant (2 exceptions)10-year equipment, no performance guaranteeMedium — performance risk on owner
Bid CFully compliant2-year equipment, no performance guaranteeHigh — short warranty + unclear commissioning timeline

All values and bid details are a representative sample scenario, not a real contractor or bid. Evaluation criteria vary by project according to the facility-specific technical specification.

Risk Analysis

Sensitivity of lifecycle cost to key contract/technical variables, relative to the base case of the best-fit bid. The wider the bar, the more that variable drives the result.

Performance guarantee scope-5%+25%Commissioning delay-3%+15%Warranty length-8%+10%Equipment brand / service risk-4%+12%-20%-10%0%+10%+20%
Favorable (lower lifecycle cost)Unfavorable (higher lifecycle cost)

Outcome

The lowest-priced bid (C) carried the highest lifecycle-cost risk due to the missing performance guarantee and unclear commissioning timeline. The assessment gave the owner a comparable technical risk table beyond the price difference; the final decision, alongside commercial negotiation, remained with the owner.

Variables to clarify before a decision

  • How this risk should be priced into the contract for bids without a performance guarantee
  • The commissioning timeline's impact on the overall project schedule

Assumptions and limits

  • Evaluation criteria and weights are specific to the sample scenario; a real project adapts them to the facility.
  • Scoring is based on the bids' technical and contractual content; commercial/price negotiation is a separate process.
  • Results do not replace the owner's final decision; they provide a technical and financial basis.
  • The study is a technical assessment, not a contractor selection or contract-signing commitment.

An independent assessment for your own project

Request a technical pre-assessment to evaluate incoming bids using a comparable technical criteria set.

Request a technical pre-assessment