TruBuild is designed for defensible tender evaluation. The goal is not to let AI make the decision. The goal is to give evaluation teams a faster first pass, a cleaner review surface, and a complete record of what humans accepted, changed, queried, and awarded. Use this page as the baseline governance model for enterprise tender teams.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.
Governance principles
| Principle | How to apply it in TruBuild |
|---|---|
| Separate commercial and technical work | Use package roles so commercial users see commercial workflows, technical users see technical workflows, and viewers can review without editing. |
| Fix the evaluation basis before scoring | Set package technical/commercial weights, contractors, reference documents, and criteria before running commercial or technical rounds. |
| Treat AI output as draft evidence | Commercial anomalies, technical scores, and query drafts must be reviewed by assigned evaluators before committee use. |
| Preserve each workflow round | Use a new commercial or technical round after every material clarification cycle instead of overwriting prior results. |
| Record human judgment | Use notes, overrides, comments, and award comments to explain why the team accepted or changed the machine output. |
Standard evaluation model
Tender queries are shown as their own lane because they are not just an output of commercial or technical evaluation. In common construction procurement workflows, questions can arrive before bid return, during compliance checks, after evaluator review, or after formal addenda. They should be controlled in the same package record as commercial and technical PTCs.Round model
A round is a controlled workflow snapshot inside a package. Commercial rounds and technical rounds are created independently, but both inherit the same package context: contractors, documents, weights, tender queries, and award record. This lets procurement teams preserve the difference between initial submissions, post-clarification responses, revised offers, and final award evidence without forcing commercial and technical teams to move in lockstep.| Round | Common construction procurement meaning | Typical evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Round 0 - setup | Tender issued, package configured, documents uploaded | RFP, BOQ/PTE, criteria, contractor list, weights |
| Commercial Round 1 - initial pricing | First priced return from bidders | Initial priced BOQs, comparison output, commercial PTCs |
| Technical Round 1 - initial scoring | First technical return from bidders | Technical proposals, criteria, initial scores, reviewer comments |
| PTC / query cycle | Evaluators raise clarification questions and bidders respond | Commercial PTCs, technical PTCs, tender query register, response documents |
| Commercial Round 2 - revised pricing | Responses materially change price, exclusions, qualifications, or unpriced scope | Revised BOQs, changed totals, commercial notes |
| Technical Round 2 - revised scoring | Responses materially change technical evidence or scoring basis | Rerun/carry-forward decisions, changed scores, reviewer rationale |
| Final offer / BAFO | Procurement asks shortlisted bidders for best and final offer or final clarification | Final commercial position and confirmed technical compliance, each tied to its own latest reviewed round |
| Award recommendation | Committee-ready decision record | Latest reviewed commercial round, latest reviewed technical round, open-query status, selected contractor, award comments |
Not every package needs every workflow round. The control is proportional: a small works package may only need one commercial round, one technical round, and award, while a high-value MEP or facade package may need several commercial and technical clarification cycles.
Commercial controls
Commercial evaluation should answer one question: which bidder is commercially most advantageous after exclusions, unpriced items, anomalies, and clarifications are understood?| Control | Recommended owner | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Reference BOQ accepted | Commercial lead | BOQ upload and extracted line-item structure |
| Vendor files complete | Commercial team | Contractor upload status |
| Comparison round created | Commercial lead | Round name, round number, timestamp |
| Pricing anomalies reviewed | Commercial evaluator | Notes, edited PTC rows, resolved anomalies |
| Unpriced and excluded items reviewed | Commercial evaluator | PTC list and exported comparison |
| Final commercial position approved | Procurement manager | Exported comparison and award comments |
Commercial review checklist
Before running
Before running
- At least two contractors are added to the package.
- The package currency is correct.
- The reference BOQ or PTE is uploaded in the commercial workflow.
- Each contractor has the expected priced submission files.
After running
After running
- Stated totals and computed totals are reconciled.
- Globally unpriced contractors are investigated.
- High-spread assets and line items are reviewed first.
- Commercial PTCs are grouped by contractor and category.
- Manual notes explain material overrides or exclusions.
Technical controls
Technical evaluation should answer one question: which bidder best satisfies the scope, criteria, and owner requirements at the agreed technical weighting?| Control | Recommended owner | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Criteria accepted | Technical lead | Criteria tree or evaluation JSON |
| Contractor proposals complete | Technical team | Uploaded proposal documents by contractor |
| Initial technical round created | Technical lead | Round kind, round number, round name |
| AI scores reviewed | Assigned evaluators | Accepted scores, overrides, reviewer comments |
| Clarification impact assessed | Technical lead | Rerun/carry-forward selections by contractor and criterion |
| Final technical position approved | Procurement manager and technical lead | Ranking, report, comments |
Clarification impact
Technical rounds support a controlled post-tender clarification workflow. When bidder responses arrive, the technical team should decide which criteria are materially affected and which can carry forward.| Decision | Use when | Expected rationale |
|---|---|---|
rerun | The clarification changes the bidder’s response against a criterion | Cite the PTC, contractor response, and affected criterion |
carry_forward | The clarification does not change the score basis | Explain why the prior score remains valid |
Tender query controls
Pre-tender and post-tender queries are not administrative noise. They are part of the award evidence.| Status | Meaning | Governance note |
|---|---|---|
pending | Imported or created, not yet assigned | Should be triaged quickly |
assigned | Owner identified | Must have accountable responder |
draft_response | Draft answer exists | AI or human draft needs review |
pending_approval | Waiting for approver | Should not be sent externally |
approved | Ready to issue | Response is controlled |
sent | Sent to tenderer | Timers and due dates matter |
closed | Resolved, withdrawn, duplicate, merged, or other | Closed reason should be meaningful |
technical, commercial, contractual, and general.
Award readiness
Before a package is awarded, the procurement manager should be able to answer:- Which contractor is selected?
- What are the technical and commercial weights?
- Which technical round and commercial round support the recommendation?
- Which material PTCs remain open?
- Which scores or prices were manually changed by evaluators?
- Why did the team choose the selected contractor over the nearest alternatives?
Related
Commercial evaluation
Commercial workflow details for cost managers and QS teams.
Technical evaluation
Technical workflow details for evaluators and discipline leads.