> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.trubuild.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Award readiness > Check the evidence, assemble the committee pack, and record a defensible package award in TruBuild. Award readiness is the point where procurement, commercial, technical, and owner-side stakeholders can defend the recommendation without reconstructing emails, spreadsheets, and meeting notes. In most construction procurement processes, the award recommendation is the document that gets audited: by an unsuccessful bidder, a funder, or your own committee months later. The goal is a decision record that stands on its own. In TruBuild, a package award rests on the latest reviewed technical and commercial rounds, the tender query record, and a written decision rationale. This page covers what to check before awarding, what to put in the committee pack, how to record the award in the app, and what a defensible award comment looks like. ## Before you can award TruBuild enforces two conditions before a package can be awarded: * The contractor must be ranked in **both** the technical and commercial evaluations. A contractor with a technical score but no priced submission (or the reverse) is not eligible and will not appear in the contractor dropdown. * The technical score review on the latest technical round must be complete. Until it is, the award page shows "Complete technical score review on the latest round before awarding" and the **Award package** button stays disabled. Only users with full package access can submit an award. Viewers can open the award page and review the evaluation summary, but the **Award package** button stays disabled with a **Read-only access** tooltip. Commercial-only users cannot award either. This mirrors good procurement practice: you should not award against a technical ranking that evaluators have not signed off, and you should not award a bidder whose commercial position was never compared against the others. TruBuild does not blend the two evaluations into a single award score. The award page shows the technical position and the commercial position side by side and leaves the trade-off to you. Whether your governance follows lowest evaluated price or a most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) approach, the reasoning belongs in your award comments. ## The award record Everything the committee needs should already exist in the package before the award step: | Record | Source in TruBuild | Owner | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | | Package metadata | Package setup | Procurement manager | | Contractor list | Package contractors | Package lead | | Commercial result | Latest reviewed commercial round | Commercial lead | | Technical result | Latest technical round with score review complete | Technical lead | | Clarifications | Tender queries and PTC records | Procurement manager | | Selected contractor | Award package flow | Procurement manager | | Award comments | Award package flow | Procurement manager and committee secretary | ## Committee checklist Package name, currency, contractor list, and evaluation basis should match the tender strategy approved before evaluation. If the basis changed mid-evaluation, that change needs its own justification. Review the latest commercial comparison: total bid position, exclusions, unpriced items, and pricing anomalies. State whether committee figures are **Received** (as submitted) or **Normalized** (after overrides), and confirm every material override carries a note. Review the latest technical ranking and criterion-level scores, including evaluator overrides and any clarification-driven reruns. The score review on the latest round must be marked complete. Review the tender query register. Material queries that have not reached **Closed** (still **Pending**, **Assigned**, **Draft Response**, **Pending Approval**, or **Sent** without a response) should be resolved or explicitly accepted as residual risk before award. Select the awarded contractor and add award comments that explain the decision, not just the result. ## Assemble the committee pack Export a fixed snapshot of the evidence before the committee sits, so reviewers work from documents rather than a live screen. TruBuild produces four deliverables that together cover the award recommendation: | Deliverable | Format | What it gives the committee | | ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Commercial comparison workbook | `.xlsx`, one per asset and round | Vendor totals, PTE benchmark, lowest bidder, the full line-by-line comparison per division, and a warnings sheet listing detected anomalies | | Technical evaluation results workbook | `.xlsx` | Contractor ranking, scores by round, and detailed weighted section scores with evidence references | | PTC questions export | `.xlsx`, per asset and round | Clarification questions, vendor responses, and status per item, so open items are visible | | Evaluation report | `.docx` | Cover page, executive summary, key metrics, and detailed per-round scores in a document format for circulation | Export the commercial comparison with **Export Comparison** from the asset's commercial detail page, choosing the vendors, price display, and bid mode the committee should see. See [Commercial evaluation](/platform/commercial-eval) for the export options. Exports are logged with the exporting user, timestamp, and scope, so you can later establish exactly which version of the comparison the committee reviewed. Retain the exported files alongside the committee minutes. ## Award the package in the app From the package overview, click **Award package**. Use the **Select contractor** dropdown. It lists only eligible contractors (ranked in both evaluations), with the top technically ranked contractor pre-selected. If you are awarding to a different contractor, your award comments should explain why. The summary card shows the selected contractor's position on both sides: * **Technical**: rank and score * **Commercial**: rank and total bid This is your last sense check that the selection matches the evidence. Confirm both figures come from the latest reviewed rounds. Fill in **Award comments (optional)**. Optional in the app, but treat it as mandatory for any committee-governed award. See the examples below. Click **Award package**. TruBuild confirms with "Package awarded successfully" and returns you to the package overview. ### After the award * The package status badge changes from **Pending Award** to **Awarded**. * The awarded contractor's name and the award date appear on the package. * Award comments remain accessible in the package details panel. * The award action is recorded in the audit trail, including who awarded, when, and the comments entered. Submitting the award writes the awarded contractor and comments to the package record. Confirm the selected contractor and the round evidence before clicking **Award package**. ## Good award comments Good comments explain the reasoning a future auditor or committee member would need: ```text theme={null} Award recommended to Contractor B. Contractor B ranked second technically but first commercially after Round 2 clarifications. Contractor A held the highest technical score, but its price remained 14.8% above the package average and included unresolved exclusions on commissioning support. Contractor B's PTC responses resolved the material HSE and programme concerns, and no high-priority commercial queries remain open. ``` Weak comments are labels, not rationale: ```text theme={null} Approved as discussed. ``` A useful test: could someone who never attended the evaluation meetings reconstruct why this contractor won, and why the nearest alternative did not, from the comment plus the round evidence? ## Residual risk register Before award, capture any residual items that remain unresolved: | Risk | Example | Where to record | | ----------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | | Open technical clarification | Missing commissioning method statement | Tender query or technical PTC | | Open commercial clarification | Provisional sum excluded or qualified | Commercial PTC | | Qualification or exception | Contractor qualifies programme, warranty, scope, or compliance requirement | Tender query, PTC note, or award comment | | Extraction uncertainty | Imputed values remain on high-value lines that were never verified against the source document | Line-item notes on the commercial round | | Committee exception | Awarding to a contractor other than the lowest bidder or technical leader | Award comments | ## When not to award yet Delay award or escalate if: * A material query has not reached Closed and its answer could change the ranking. * The selected contractor has unresolved unpriced scope or unaccepted exclusions. * The technical score review on the latest round is not complete. TruBuild blocks the award in this case. * A technical score depends on a criterion that was not revisited after a material clarification. * The commercial result relies on a manual override without an explanatory note. * The committee pack was exported from a different round than the one on screen. * The award comment does not explain why the selected contractor is preferred over the nearest alternative. ## Related Access levels, audit trail, and the controls behind the award gate. Build and export the commercial evidence that supports the award. Complete the technical score review required before awarding. Manage clarification status and response evidence.