Tendering Your Build Is a Costly Disaster

“At some point, someone’s paying for that tender.”

Tendering sounds fair on paper. Same drawings, three builders, pick the best price, move on.

But once you understand what it actually costs to price a job properly, and how tendering rewards omissions, risk loading, and variations, it starts to look less like a “market test” and more like a costly way to kick off a relationship.

In this episode, Hamish and Matt break down what a tender really is, why the classic draw, bid, build model creates isolation and blame, and why negotiated tendering (paid pre-construction with clear costing stop points) changes the incentives for everyone.

They also get into the uncomfortable bits architects and clients don’t always see: the real cost of tendering, why prices can come back wildly different, how gaps in documentation become legitimate variations, and why trust matters more than pretending you can compare builders like-for-like.

If you’ve ever wondered why a project can look “fully resolved” and still blow out, or why builders hate competitive tendering, this one will probably ruffle a few feathers.

CHAPTER MARKERS00:00 Introduction

01:05 The Classic Tender Process And Why It Starts Badly

02:10 What “Resolved Documents” Really Means

04:19 What Gets Left Out Becomes Variations

05:12 Why Projects Go Over Budget And Who Gets Blamed

09:06 Tender Vs Negotiated Tender Depends On The Builder