REQVERA
Ask the Buyer · Decision note 07

Two tender documents contradict each other. Which requirement do you answer?

Illustrative situation · Not a customer case
The buyer’s question

The specification requires one service level. The response schedule requires another. Which one governs our bid?

Identify both exact passages, check the stated precedence rules, and ask the buyer to resolve the conflict through the authorised channel. Do not select the easier requirement or treat silence as acceptance.

A clarification to adapt

For [procurement reference], [document A, version/date, section] requires [requirement A], whereas [document B, version/date, section] requires [requirement B] for [same service or scope]. Please confirm which requirement governs the tender response and whether the other document will be corrected. Please also confirm any effect on [response field, pricing basis or assessment criterion]. We will apply the clarification issued through [authorised channel] to the affected response sections. The current submission deadline is [date/time/time zone]; please confirm any formally revised deadline if applicable.

Replace every bracketed field with verified facts. Remove any optional sentence you cannot substantiate. Do not submit this wording unchanged.

Conflict-resolution record

One issue, two sources, one approved interpretation. Keep these fields with the working response rather than burying the conflict in email.

Source A / Source B
Exact section, issued version and scope for each passage; preserve the conflicting wording.
Material effect
State what changes: service, eligibility, price, delivery approach or response format. Do not label every wording difference a blocker.
Authority
Applicable hierarchy or issued clarification, its identifier and whether an amendment supersedes either passage.
Release condition
Named owner confirms the interpretation, affected answers are reconciled, and unresolved assumptions remain visible to the release decision-maker.

What makes the wording defensible

Ask a precise buyer clarification, preserve both sources and prevent an unsupported assumption from becoming your final commitment.

  • Establish a real conflict, not merely different scopes

    Put the passages side by side before contacting the buyer. A four-hour restoration target and a thirty-minute incident acknowledgement are not contradictory: they measure different events. Check defined terms, severity, service hours, exclusions, geography and document versions. Explain why both passages apply to the same obligation. Remove unrelated background from the question; the buyer should be able to locate the conflict without reconstructing your whole response. The situation above is illustrative, not a documented customer procurement.

  • Read precedence before choosing an interpretation

    Find the actual tender's document hierarchy, amendments and Q&A status. Where included and applicable, US FAR 52.215-8 supplies an order of precedence for the Uniform Contract Format; it is not a universal hierarchy for every RFP. A later filename alone does not establish authority. Ask your commercial or legal owner whether an express hierarchy resolves this conflict or leaves material uncertainty. Keep that reasoning separate from the buyer-facing question.

  • Protect the process and the clock

    Use the named portal or contracting contact and the tender's question deadline. Assume the question may be circulated: do not expose confidential solution details or prices unnecessarily. Sending a question does not extend the submission deadline. If the window has closed, escalate the unresolved interpretation through the permitted procedure rather than bypassing it through a friendly buyer contact. A clarification request is not a protest or a substitute for jurisdiction-specific legal advice.

The evidence to obtain

  • The complete source pair

    Retain both issued documents with their version, date, section and surrounding definitions. Record the exact obligation and its affected response field. Preserve the buyer's question instructions, applicable precedence clause and all relevant amendments. A screenshot of one sentence without its context is insufficient for a defensible interpretation.

  • The authoritative resolution

    Save the submitted question, receipt and buyer response with their identifiers and timestamps. Establish whether the response is binding under this procedure, whether an amendment is required, and which documents are actually replaced. A sales representative's recollection of a call is not equivalent to an issued tender clarification. Where no answer arrives, record that fact rather than manufacturing a resolved state.

  • The changed response and its approvals

    Link the resolution to technical, commercial and contractual passages that relied on the disputed requirement. Recheck pricing, service coverage, exceptions and evidence before reopening approval. Keep the original interpretation and the final approved interpretation distinguishable. The export should contain the approved answer, not an earlier library paragraph with different commitments.

The decision to approve

Decision owners
The Bid Manager owns the question and source register; the relevant technical owner verifies scope. Commercial or legal approval is needed when the interpretation changes price, liability or contractual commitments.
Proceed
Proceed on a documented interpretation supported by the applicable hierarchy or an authoritative clarification, after affected owners have approved the resulting response. Confirm that the submission instructions still allow the chosen presentation.
Do not proceed
Do not claim unconditional compliance where incompatible material requirements remain unresolved and you cannot support both. Silence or an informal assurance does not approve an exception.
Escalate
If no usable answer arrives, obtain a recorded bid/no-bid or permitted-exception decision before release. Whether an assumption can be stated, or another formal remedy is available, depends on the solicitation and jurisdiction; do not add an unauthorised qualification automatically.

Keep the decision in the final files

A clarified requirement can still coexist with an obsolete answer in the final bid. Use REQVERA's final-control workflow to examine the current requirement, supported commitment and exact files you intend to submit. The editorial question does not determine legal precedence, obtain a buyer decision or certify your bid.

See the authentic final-control workflow

Scope & primary references

Operational guidance for pre-submission clarification. UK Procurement Act and US federal references are separate examples, not rules for every market. UK guidance must be checked against the procurement's applicable regime, including transitional arrangements; devolved Scottish procurement is not automatically covered. For US procurement, check the provisions actually included and agency deviations, including applicable FAR-overhaul changes. Private buyers set their own permitted clarification process.