Engineering consultancy in Lebanon: what should be resolved before tender?

Define what ‘tender ready’ means for the project.

Tender readiness depends on procurement strategy. A fully detailed traditional package requires a different level of information from a package that deliberately leaves specialist design to the contractor.

The engineering team should therefore state what is fixed, what remains performance-based, what information the bidder must develop and which interfaces are still subject to coordination.

Ambiguity is most dangerous when the client believes a requirement is included and the bidder has priced it as excluded.

Coordinate the discipline boundaries before they become tender qualifications.

Engineering issues often sit between disciplines rather than inside one of them. Equipment loads affect structure. Ceiling layouts affect MEP distribution. Plant access affects architecture. Drainage affects levels and structure. Controls affect multiple systems.

A coordinated tender package should identify these interfaces clearly enough that bidders are not forced to make incompatible assumptions.

Where an interface is intentionally unresolved, it should still be visible so the tender can price responsibility rather than hide it.

For refurbishment, existing conditions must be part of the engineering basis.

Existing buildings introduce uncertainty around capacity, dimensions, condition, hidden services and previous modifications. Tender documents that ignore this uncertainty often shift it into provisional sums, exclusions or later variations.

Engineering review should identify what has been verified, what requires opening-up or testing and what risk remains for the contractor to allow for.

This is particularly important for electrical capacity, cooling, ventilation, drainage, fire/life-safety systems and structural alterations.

Specifications should define performance, not only product names.

A strong specification describes what the system or material must achieve, the standards or performance criteria that matter and the interfaces that must be preserved.

Where named products are used, the team should understand whether alternatives will be allowed and how equivalence will be assessed. Leaving this question until tender clarification creates inconsistent bids.

Technical schedules should also align with the drawings. Conflicts between drawings, specifications and schedules force bidders to choose which document they believe controls.

Tender queries reveal where the design is still uncertain.

Clarification questions are not simply an administrative burden. Repeated questions from several bidders can identify unclear scope boundaries, missing data or inconsistent technical requirements.

The engineering team should record significant clarifications and decide whether the tender documents need a formal revision rather than replying privately to individual bidders.

This preserves a common pricing basis and reduces later disagreement over what information formed part of the tender.

Engineering decisions before tender shape construction and operation later.

Maintenance access, isolation strategy, testing requirements, commissioning, spare parts and asset information are easier to define before the contract is awarded than at handover.

Tender documents should therefore include the technical closeout requirements that the contractor must price and plan from the beginning.

Good tender engineering does more than help select a contractor. It creates a clearer technical baseline for procurement, construction and final operation.

Use a tender-readiness checklist before issuing engineering information.

Before tender release, the engineering team should review whether major calculations and design criteria are established, interfaces between disciplines are understood, equipment and system capacities are defined, and drawings align with schedules and specifications.

The team should also identify authority-related requirements, specialist design responsibilities, testing expectations, commissioning obligations and the information the contractor must provide after award. These items are often commercially significant even when they do not dominate the drawings.

Distinguish missing detail from missing decisions.

Some detailed information can legitimately be developed later by the contractor or specialist supplier. That is different from issuing a tender before the client or consultant has made a fundamental decision about scope, performance or layout.

If a decision is still open, the tender should either define a clear allowance or postpone commitment until the basis is confirmed. Otherwise, bidders price assumptions that later become variations.

After award, engineering control shifts from design production to technical closure.

Once a contractor is appointed, the focus moves toward submittals, shop drawings, specialist calculations, samples, technical queries and site conditions. The engineering team should maintain the design basis while allowing supplier-specific information to be coordinated into the project.

Review comments should identify genuine technical non-compliance and interface risk rather than creating unnecessary cycles around presentation. At the same time, approval should not be used to transfer unresolved design responsibility without clarity.

Track changes against the tender baseline.

When a contractor proposes an alternative, the review should consider performance, dimensions, interfaces, authority implications, maintenance, warranty and programme as well as cost.

Approved changes should be reflected in controlled project information so that the construction team, commercial records and final as-built documentation remain aligned. That continuity is one of the main reasons engineering involvement after tender can protect the quality of the original technical decisions.

Common pre-tender engineering mistakes create expensive ambiguity.

One mistake is issuing drawings that appear complete while key technical decisions remain unresolved in notes or meeting minutes. Bidders price what they can see in the tender documents, not the consultant’s internal understanding of what may change later.

Another is allowing different disciplines to issue information on separate revision cycles without one coordinated tender release. The documents may each be current individually while still describing incompatible conditions at their interfaces.

Do not use tender clarifications to finish the design informally.

Clarification questions are useful, but a long chain of bidder correspondence can become an uncontrolled design-development process. When a response materially changes the requirement, the tender package should be revised so every bidder is pricing the same information.

Finally, avoid treating contractor alternatives as purely commercial substitutions. Any alternative that changes dimensions, loads, controls, maintenance or authority requirements should return through the relevant engineering coordination before it is accepted.