Before the Price Goes In: Interrogating Asbestos Data at Tender Stage

A tender pack for refurbishment or maintenance work is, in effect, a set of instructions about risk. The asbestos register within it tells bidders what they may meet, where it sits and how much of the building has actually been examined. When that information is thin, the contractor is not simply inconvenienced; they are asked to price an unknown quantity. The consequences tend to surface later, as inflated risk allowances, narrowly worded exclusions or variation claims once work is under way.

For dutyholders, the practical question is not whether a register exists, but whether it can withstand scrutiny by a contractor who has to mobilise on the strength of it. That is a different test from routine compliance.

The register as a pricing document

Contractors convert asbestos information into cost. A confirmed asbestos insulating board ceiling, in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed, may carry little direct cost. The same board in a service riser scheduled for alteration carries enclosure, removal, analyst time and possibly licensed work. A survey that does not distinguish between these situations leaves the bidder to guess, and guessing is expensive.

Bidders typically respond to uncertainty in one of three ways. They add a contingency that the client pays for whether or not the risk materialises. They qualify the price with an exclusion that shifts the problem back to the client. Or they price optimistically and recover the difference through variations. None of these outcomes is a sound basis for procurement.

What the information must demonstrate

A register suitable for tender should answer five questions without requiring a phone call.

Provenance. Who carried out the survey, when, and to what standard? The survey type matters: a management survey supports ongoing occupation and maintenance, while a refurbishment and demolition survey is intrusive and intended for works that will disturb the fabric. A management survey supplied for a strip-out tender is a mismatch, however well presented the document.

Scope. Which parts of the building were inspected, and which were not? Roof voids, risers, plant rooms, ceiling voids, ductwork and the fabric behind fixed finishes are common blind spots. The register should state the extent of access achieved, not merely the extent of the building.

Findings in usable detail. For each asbestos-containing material, the tender team needs type, location, extent, condition and accessibility. A line that reads 'asbestos present in ceiling' is not a finding; it is a prompt for a site visit and a qualifications schedule.

Caveats. Inaccessible areas, presumed materials and sampling limitations should be explicit. A caveat is a managed risk. A blank space is an unmanaged one.

Currency. When was the information produced, and has the building changed since? Alterations, water damage, previous removals and changes of use all affect the reliability of an older register.

Caveats and blanks are not the same thing

Experienced contractors treat stated limitations quite differently from silence. A register that records 'no access to riser 4; presumed asbestos-containing debris at base' allows the bidder to price a provisional sum or a defined exclusion. A register that simply omits riser 4 gives the bidder nothing to price against and nothing to point to later.

Dutyholders should read their own documents with that distinction in mind. If the surveyor could not gain access, the register should say so plainly and the tender pack should draw attention to it. If the register is silent, the contractor is entitled to ask why, and a prudent one will.

The cost of thin information

Under CDM 2015, clients are required to provide pre-construction information to those bidding for and carrying out construction work, and asbestos information forms part of that duty. The duty to manage under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 underpins the register itself. Compliance with the letter of these duties does not automatically produce information fit for pricing.

When information is weak, the commercial effects are predictable. Tender returns become difficult to compare because bidders are qualifying different assumptions. Post-tender clarification consumes time. The successful contractor mobilises with unresolved questions and work stops at the first unexpected find. At that point the discussion is no longer about asbestos management; it is about who bears the cost of the delay.

There is also a safety dimension. A contractor pricing on an assumption that a ceiling void is clear may begin work before the discrepancy is noticed. The disruption that follows is avoidable, but only if the information was adequate at the outset.

A pre-tender checklist for dutyholders

Before issuing the pack, the dutyholder should be able to answer the following.

• Does the survey type match the works being tendered?
• Is the survey date recent enough for the building's condition and history?
• Are all inaccessible areas listed, with the reason and any presumption applied?
• Does every register entry give material type, location, extent and condition?
• Do the register and the tender drawings agree on room names, levels and plant locations?
• Have previous removals, damage or alterations been reflected in the information?
• Is it clear who maintains the register during the works and how updates will be shared?
• Will clarifications raised by one bidder be circulated to all, in writing?

A negative answer is not necessarily a reason to postpone the tender, but it is a reason to address the gap before pricing begins.

What contractors should insist on

Contractors have a reciprocal role. They should ask for enough time to review the information rather than absorbing it on the day before return. They should seek written confirmation of survey scope and exclusions, and record their own assumptions in the tender rather than leaving them implicit. Where a site visit reveals a discrepancy with the register, that should be raised through the clarification process and logged.

Pricing inaccessible areas as provisional sums, or excluding them on stated grounds, is more defensible than assuming they are clear. A qualifications schedule that is read and acknowledged by the client is a better commercial instrument than a low price built on silence.

Conclusion

The tender stage is the last point at which poor asbestos information can be corrected cheaply. Once the price is fixed and the contractor is on site, every gap in the register becomes a conversation about money, time and responsibility. Dutyholders who test their own information before issue, and contractors who interrogate it before pricing, reduce the chance that the first real survey of the building happens with a breaker in hand.