Lift Replacement Tenders in Singapore: Specification, Evaluation and Award

Why are lift quotations impossible to compare?

Because nobody has written down what is being bought. When a council invites three lift companies to propose a replacement, each one defines the scope in its own proposal, naturally around its own equipment and its own approach.

One may retain the guide rails and car frame; another may not. One may quote two years’ warranty on parts and labour; another twelve months on parts only. One may commit to parts availability for twenty years; another may be silent on it. The landing entrance scope may differ, the fixtures may differ, the control configuration may differ, and the programmes may differ by months.

Then all three are reduced to a single figure, and the council is asked to choose. This is simply what happens when suppliers are asked to define the scope as well as price it — and it is straightforward to avoid.

What should a lift replacement tender include?

At minimum, a written technical specification that every tenderer prices, clear programme and phasing requirements stating how many lifts must remain in service, a pricing structure common to all bidders, and the criteria the council will use to evaluate. Without those, the returns are not comparable and the exercise is not really a tender.

The specification is the heart of it. It should describe the equipment and performance the building needs, the safety and regulatory obligations placed on the contractor, the commitments required on spare parts, obsolescence and warranty, and what must be tested, handed over and documented at the end. Written properly, it settles in advance almost everything that otherwise becomes an argument later.

What does a brand-neutral lift specification mean?

A brand-neutral specification is written around performance and compliance outcomes rather than around one manufacturer’s product or model. It keeps the tender genuinely competitive, because every qualified contractor can bid on equal terms instead of being asked to price a rival’s equipment.

This matters more than it sounds. A specification lifted from a manufacturer’s own documentation will exclude competitors on technicalities that have nothing to do with what the building actually needs — and the council loses the competitive tension that produces a defensible price.

Who should we invite to tender?

Invite contractors registered with the Building and Construction Authority for lift installation work, chosen on registration status, a track record on comparable projects, and the capacity to service the installation after handover. Three or four genuinely qualified tenderers bidding against one specification produces a better result than ten quotations gathered without one.

Comparable matters more than large. A phased replacement in an occupied high-rise residential building is a different undertaking from a new installation in a building under construction, and a contractor’s record on the latter says little about its ability to deliver the former.

Two disciplines protect the process throughout: every tenderer should see the same site under the same conditions, and every question asked by any tenderer should be answered in writing to all of them. Where clarifications are given verbally to individuals, the bids quietly go back onto different bases.

How do we compare lift tenders fairly?

By putting every bid onto a common basis before looking at price. Evaluation is not a price ranking — it is the work of establishing what each tenderer has actually offered, adjusting for the differences between them, and only then comparing cost. Rankings frequently change once that is done.

The differences that need adjusting for are usually the same ones: what each bid includes and excludes, where it departs from the specification, what has been left as a provisional sum to be settled later, what is committed on warranty and parts availability, and whether the programme offered is credible for a building where lifts must be replaced one at a time. This is detailed work, and it is the part of a tender exercise most often skipped.

Should we accept the cheapest lift tender?

Not automatically. A low price usually reflects something: a thinner scope, a shorter warranty, a narrower parts commitment, an optimistic programme, or provisional sums that will be adjusted upward later. Once the bids are put on a common footing, the genuinely lowest cost frequently turns out to be a different tenderer.

Programme credibility deserves particular scrutiny. A contractor that programmes a high-rise, one-lift-at-a-time replacement as though it were a low-rise block is not offering speed — it is under-pricing, and the council meets the difference later through extension-of-time claims and a project that overruns into a second financial year.

What should the council be able to minute?

A recommendation for award should give the council the like-for-like comparison, the reasoning behind the recommendation, the risks attached to each bid, and the basis on which the preferred tenderer was selected — in terms that can be tabled, minuted and, if needed, shown to owners two years later.

The letter of award and the assembly of the executed contract documents then close the stage. What was tendered, what was clarified by addendum, and what was agreed at interview must all be captured in the executed contract. Anything left out of it is, in practice, out of the contract.

What goes wrong with lift tenders?

Seven failures account for most of the money MCSTs lose on lift replacement projects, and every one of them is avoided at the same place — the front end, before the first price arrives.

• No written specification. Suppliers define the scope, and comparability is lost before pricing begins.
• A specification copied from a manufacturer’s document. Written around one product, it excludes competitors on technicalities and eliminates competitive tension.
• Budgeting from a rule of thumb. A per-lift floor calibrated to mid-rise installations, applied as an estimate, leaves a high-rise tower under-funded before the project starts. See our guide to what actually drives lift replacement cost.
• Ignoring phasing in the programme. Where lifts must be replaced one at a time, durations stack. A programme that assumes otherwise generates extension-of-time claims.
• Treating the fireman’s lift as a like-for-like item. It carries obligations and costs the passenger lifts do not.
• Verbal clarifications. Answers given to one tenderer and not the others put the bids back on different bases.
• Stopping at award. A specification only delivers value if someone verifies on site that what was specified is what is installed, certifies payments against actual progress, and agrees the final account.