Asset tagging tender checklist for procurement

We do not publish client names or logos publicly, but we can discuss references directly and confidentially with a genuine procuring entity where a tender requires them. Ask us specifically what the tender requires and we will advise what we can provide within that.

Failing to explicitly address every mandatory requirement in the specification, even when the supplier could actually meet it. Evaluators mark against what is written in the bid, not what the supplier privately knows they can do, so completeness of the response matters as much as capability.

Specify material properties (anodised aluminium, 0.5 mm, given temperature and outdoor life ratings) rather than a brand name, so the specification is fair to multiple qualified suppliers and still enforceable on quality. Naming a brand can also unintentionally exclude qualified suppliers who meet the same specification under a different product name, which risks a procurement challenge, whereas properties like thickness, finish and outdoor life rating give evaluators an objective basis for comparison.

State clearly in the tender document whether bidders should quote inclusive or exclusive of VAT, and require both figures if evaluators need to compare true cost. Inconsistent VAT treatment across bids is a frequent, avoidable evaluation headache. Our own published prices exclude VAT at the current 16% rate, and we'd recommend tender documents state explicitly whether the evaluation criterion is the VAT-exclusive or VAT-inclusive figure, since bidders left to guess will not all guess the same way.

Yes, particularly for multi-site or large-volume tagging exercises where accurate pricing depends on seeing asset conditions and locations. It is fair to make this mandatory as long as reasonable notice and access is given to all bidders equally. A mandatory visit also reduces post-award variation claims, since bidders who have seen the actual assets and site conditions are less likely to discover unexpected complications after the contract is signed and pricing is fixed.

Yes, asset tagging does not require heavy capital infrastructure, and a smaller manufacturer with genuine Nairobi production capacity can compete well on price, lead time and responsiveness against a larger, more distant firm, provided they meet the mandatory compliance documents.

For orders above 5,000 tags, lead time should be confirmed on quotation rather than assumed, since it depends on size, finish and quantity. Be wary of any bid promising very large volumes in an unrealistically short time without qualifying that.

Yes, tagging and register-building are related but separate deliverables with separate skill requirements. Specifying them together without clarity on standard (IPSAS/IFRS) and fields required makes it hard to evaluate whether a bidder can actually deliver the register, not just the physical tags.

This should be addressed in the contract, not just the tender, with clear remedies (penalties, extension terms) for delay. At the tender stage, cross-check a bidder's claimed lead time against their stated production capacity and existing order book where visible.