Build Project BriefPublic Realm & Development · Procurement & tender guide
A tender is easier to evaluate when every bidder is responding to the same controlled requirement. This guide brings the project brief, product schedule, technical evidence, responsibility split, logistics, lifecycle and tender-return structure together before Apollo or another supplier is asked to price the work.
State whether the project is at concept, design development, tender, procurement or staged delivery. Record the public, educational, development or commercial outcome first so product requirements can be compared against the actual use rather than a catalogue description.
Where the brief is incomplete, list the open items explicitly. Different bidders should not be allowed to hide different assumptions inside apparently comparable prices.
List the required product families, quantities, dimensions, finish direction, optional items and known interfaces in one schedule. Distinguish mandatory requirements from preferences and future-stage items.
For repeatable developer or campus projects, identify which models, finishes and interfaces should remain consistent across buildings, stages or precincts.
Current dimensions, materials, model-specific test evidence, warranties and product options should be sourced from the current controlled product record. Wind, structural, fire, accessibility, electrical, acoustic or other project criteria supplied by the client's consultants remain project requirements until the selected configuration is checked against them.
Do not write an unverified performance value into the tender simply because a similar product or supplier brochure mentions it.
State which drawings, specifications, samples, finish schedules, certificates, test reports, calculations, manuals, warranties and maintenance information are required at tender, after award and before manufacture.
The evidence depth should follow product risk. Public furniture, structural shade, sports infrastructure, façades and large buildings should not be forced through an identical document checklist.
Apollo is supply-only. Tender documents should separately assign site measurement, foundations, civil works, structural design, electrical work, installation, commissioning where applicable, accessibility design, local code review and statutory approvals unless a written project scope expressly allocates an item elsewhere.
Clear exclusions make supplier bids more comparable because local works are not silently included by one bidder and omitted by another.
A lower-cost or visually similar alternative should be reviewed against the same function, dimensions and interfaces, material and finish, technical evidence, warranty and spares, maintenance, destination conditions and programme requirements as the specified pathway.
If a substitution is accepted, update the controlled project record so construction, maintenance and future replacement teams know what was actually approved and supplied.
Public and multi-unit assets continue operating long after procurement. Cleaning, inspection, spare parts, replaceable components, service access, coating or finish maintenance, control-system ownership and future expansion should be visible during evaluation rather than left until handover.
Whole-of-life considerations can materially change the better procurement pathway even when capital prices appear similar.
For large, staged or international projects, define the required handover point, importer or receiver, packaging standard, labelling, shipment staging, unloading, storage and onward transport responsibilities before award.
Where products are repeated by room, building, court, precinct or stage, project-labelled packing and release schedules can reduce receiving errors and site rehandling.
Ask bidders to identify the exact offered model or system, inclusions, exclusions, deviations, lead time, quote validity, warranty, spares, technical evidence supplied, outstanding technical items, freight basis and local responsibilities. Unknown items should remain marked as unknown or project-dependent rather than being filled with assumptions.
Apollo's procurement templates can be copied or downloaded to help build the tender review, supplier due-diligence and technical-submittal registers.
Comparison reference
Use the matrix to check whether the tender package is ready to compare like with like. It does not replace the project contract, consultant documents or destination-specific procurement requirements.
| Planning criterion | Before issue | Tender return | Before award | Before manufacture / supply |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project scope | Outcome, stage, site, product schedule, quantities and interfaces defined. | Offered scope, exclusions and deviations clearly stated. | Selected scope reconciled against the issued requirement. | Final quantities, configuration and written supply scope frozen. |
| Technical evidence | Required evidence and submittal stages listed by product risk. | Available evidence identified with gaps and project-dependent items visible. | Critical evidence reviewed against the exact offered system. | Current approved drawings, documents, samples and revisions controlled. |
| Commercial control | Tender currency, validity, delivery basis and return format defined. | Lead time, payment, warranty, spares, engineering/sample charges and freight basis stated. | Commercial clarifications closed and assumptions recorded. | Purchase / supply documents match the approved technical and commercial scope. |
| Local responsibilities | Engineering, civil, electrical, installation, accessibility and approvals assigned. | Bidder confirms included support and excluded local works. | Responsibility gaps resolved before award. | Site, receiving and local-team prerequisites confirmed before dispatch. |
| Lifecycle + handover | Maintenance, replacement and operator requirements included where relevant. | Warranty, service, spare-parts and maintenance pathways returned. | Lifecycle obligations reviewed alongside price. | Manuals, warranty, spares, packing records and final as-supplied documents prepared. |
A tender can be commercially complete while still being technically unresolved. Keep unresolved requirements visible until the responsible party has closed them with current project evidence.
Reference this resource
Link to the live page rather than a saved copy so readers reach the current Apollo planning resource and its latest controlled product links.
apollonzglobal.com/knowledge-centre/public-realm-development/public-sector-development-tender-readiness-guideapollonzglobal.com/knowledge-centre/public-realm-development/public-sector-development-tender-readiness-guide#comparison-matrixMove from knowledge to project