Compare offers from microtunneling price alone often leads to incomplete decisions. In a trenchless project, two proposals may appear to be equivalent in amount and yet be based on very different assumptions about the terrain, performance, thrust, civil works or actual scope. Therefore, in order to correctly evaluate a bid, it is advisable to review a number of points technical indicators to understand if the proposed solution is really feasible, constructible and consistent with the project risk.
In a bidding process for microtunneling o pipe ramming, The best price does not always coincide with the best proposal. What is decisive is to check what level of technical definition the bid has and what risks each bidder is taking - or leaving out.
What to compare before price
Consistency between geotechnics, method and layout
One of the first indicators is to check whether the proposed method really fits with the geology, hydrogeology and geometry of the crossing. A technically sound bid explains how it responds to the presence of water, terrain variability, cover, curves, slopes and project tolerances. When this relationship between terrain, layout and method is not well justified, the price may be competitive, but the risk of detour increases significantly.
Actual level of constructability
It is also important to analyze whether the bid has correctly assessed the accesses, implementation, logistics, stockpiles, points of attack and reception and the associated civil works. A proposal may appear to be very tight and yet be based on an unrealistic implementation or a sequence of works that is difficult to execute. In projects with relevant constraints, this point weighs as much as the geotechnics itself.
Technical indicators that differentiate between offers
1. Definition of the excavation and control system
A good bid does not simply name a technology. It must explain what excavation system it proposes, with what control logic and why it fits the crossing conditions. If the project calls for a specific solution or an alternative, such as Direct Pipe o horizontal directional drilling, The proposal should clearly justify why that option is more appropriate or why it is not.
2. Yield and term assumptions
Another key indicator is the credibility of the expected performance. It is not enough to present a short schedule; it is necessary to assess whether this timeframe is consistent with the terrain, diameter, length, logistics and civil works required. A technically robust bid usually explains what its daily performance depends on and what constraints could affect the actual schedule.
3. Management of thrust, friction and stress on the pipe
In microtunneling, the way in which each bid addresses predictable thrust, lubrication, accumulated friction and pipeline integrity speaks volumes about its technical level. This point is especially important in long sections, demanding diameters or projects where shafts or intermediate stations may be necessary. If this part is underdeveloped, the technical risk is often underestimated.
4. Actual scope included in the offer
Many price differences do not come from the method, but from the scope. Therefore, one of the most important indicators is to check what each proposal actually includes: execution of the crossing, detailed engineering, auxiliary civil works, attack and reception points, sludge management, tests, final documentation, topographic means, instrumentation, ground treatments or technical support. The less explicit the scope, the more difficult it will be to compare offers on equal terms.
5. Treatment of risk and uncertainties
A mature technical bid recognizes what assumptions it makes, what baseline information it considers critical, and what uncertainties may influence time, cost or method. The best proposals are not always those that promise the least risk, but those that identify it, quantify it and integrate it transparently into the execution strategy.
What are the signs that a bid may be undervaluing the project?
There are several signals that should be carefully reviewed: overly aggressive schedules without technical justification, generic performances not linked to the terrain, poor explanation of the excavation system, lack of references to thrust or geometric control, poor definition of auxiliary civil works, over-reliance on unverified assumptions, and ambiguous scope on key items. When several of these points are accumulated, the price may appear competitive, but the proposal loses robustness from the point of view of execution.
What value is provided by a technically better resolved offer?
A better resolved bid will not always be the lowest bid, but it usually offers more visibility on the real feasibility of the project. It allows to better compare risks, anticipate civil works needs, understand the logic of the method and reduce the likelihood of changes during execution. In complex projects, this can be decisive to avoid schedule deviations, cost overruns and reactive decisions already on site.
Therefore, in technical bids, it is advisable to evaluate the bids with a matrix that combines price, technical consistency, level of definition, risk control and real compatibility with the crossing environment. It is this reading that makes it possible to distinguish between a cheap proposal and a proposal that can really be awarded.
When the project runs under sensitive infrastructures or in highly demanding environments, this comparison should also incorporate specific experience in infrastructure crossings and the ability to correctly coordinate the relationship between method, layout, logistics and vertical wells.
ES 
EN 
FR 