Freeze the baseline, then record every change explicitly. A later bidder should not appear superior merely because it used a different trading period, assumed new capital or omitted the transition year.
Use a common comparison date and a change register containing the old input, new input, source, reason and effect on owner cash. Re-run all shortlisted options when the baseline materially changes. Preserve bidder-specific forecasts in a separate view so that the team can distinguish contractual economics from execution claims.
| Comparison error | Correction |
|---|---|
| One operator includes payroll support in its fee and another charges separately | Add the same required scope to both total-cost schedules |
| One brand case includes renovation while the independent case assumes no investment | Compare feasible capital programmes and identify which spending is truly incremental |
| One debt offer reports gross proceeds and another reports net funds at closing | Reconcile fees, reserves, payoff costs and cash actually available |
| One renovation budget excludes room closures | Add the monthly operating disruption and its funding source |
| One proposal has missing evidence | Preserve the missing status; do not award an average rating |
The compact weighting example in this document is illustrative. For a live evaluation, choose one approved weighting profile before bids arrive; the separate 100-point Scorecard document supplies the fuller evidence-coverage and critical-gate method. Do not average scores from different rubrics as though they measured the same thing.