WIREFRAME · non-functional design mockup · Public Procurement — Tender / Bid Evaluation · static illustrative data (RFT-2026-0142)
Award-integrity score. Recommended low bid fails a mandatory gate; the field is partly rigged. Verdict: do not award · challenge · refer.
$4,180,000
Recommended award
Six adversarial checks
Price Realism Flag
Bid −29% vs $5.9M engineer estimate; asphalt & granular pay items priced below cost floor
−$1.42M shortfall
Collusion Screen Reject
Bidders C & D: shared PDF author + submission IP; identical BOQ errors; winner/runner-up rotation
refer · field tainted
Capacity & Qual. Reject
2 of 3 cited projects mis-described; backlog + this award exceed bonding capacity
$4.18M at risk
Financial Flag
Current ratio 0.9; two 2026 late-payment filings; working capital declining
completion risk
Mandatory Reject
Bid bond 5% vs mandatory 10%; Addendum 3 not acknowledged
disqualify
Scoring Integrity Flag
Methodology 20/20 on boilerplate; abnormally-low price adjustment skipped
re-rank → B 1st
Cards reveal in sequence during the demo. Green = clean (award) · Amber = flag (query / re-evaluate) · Red = reject (disqualify / refer). Each figure is traceable (see audit drawer).
Exception report
| Item | Check | Finding | Claimed | Supported | Delta | Source |
|---|
| Bid A · price | Price Realism | Bid $4.18M vs engineer estimate $5.90M (−29%); asphalt & granular pay items below realistic cost floor | $4,180,000 | $5,600,000 | $1,420,000 | Estimate · cost floor |
| Bids C & D | Collusion | Shared PDF author + same submission IP; identical transposition errors in 3 BOQ lines; C/D alternated winner/runner-up over 2 prior tenders | — | — | refer* | Metadata · award history |
| Bidder A · qual. | Capacity | 2 of 3 cited references are sub-$1M resurfacing mis-described as arterial reconstruction; backlog $2.1M + this $4.18M > $5.0M bonding capacity | $4,180,000 | — | $4.18M risk | References · surety letter |
| Bidder A · fin. | Financial | Current ratio 0.9 (<1); two late-payment filings (2026); working capital declining three quarters | — | — | completion risk | Filed accounts · credit |
| Bidder A · MR | Mandatory | Bid bond 5% vs mandatory 10% (MR-1); Addendum 3 not acknowledged (MR-2) — a non-compliant bid must be disqualified | $4,180,000 | $0 | $4.18M void | MR schedule §4.2 |
| Evaluation | Scoring | Methodology scored 20/20 on boilerplate not addressing project constraints; price-score formula applied without the mandated abnormally-low adjustment — re-rank | — | — | B ranks 1st | RFP s.5.3 · score sheet |
| Total exposure / value at issue | $1,420,000 | *plus $4.18M disqualified + collusion referral |
Recommended position
$1.42M
Query · re-evaluate
Export evaluation report + audit trail (PDF)
Send to e-procurement (stub)
Accept / override flags
Audit drawer (on click): Source = mandatory-requirements schedule §4.2 — bid bond 10% mandatory (MR-1); all addenda acknowledged (MR-2). Bidder A's envelope: 5% bond; Addendum 3 not acknowledged → mandatory non-compliance; a non-compliant bid must be disqualified, not negotiated. Recommendation: reject the recommended award; re-evaluate the compliant field — next clean, financially-sound bid is Bidder B at $5.84M (a clean award costs +$1.66M; the low-bid “saving” was illusory).
Program trend — this procurement programme
$22.4M
flagged across 96 tenders evaluated YTD — the programme-level integrity view no e-procurement workflow tool surfaces
Bars = $ flagged per month · amber = above-threshold. Anchors: OECD — bid-rigging inflates prices ~20%; UK CMA ~£60m across 10 construction firms; UK Procurement Act 2023 debarment list. Carillion is the abnormally-low / contractor-insolvency pattern — caught here on a $4.18M award before signature.
Mockup only — illustrative figures, no live engine. Bidders & authority are synthetic; OECD red flags are the documented pattern, not an accusation. Final figures come from the six-check engine per DESIGN-public-procurement-tender-evaluation.md.