Bid comparison (Preisspiegel) for building materials

A bid comparison (Preisspiegel) is a table that sets several bids side by side, line by line, so unit prices, line totals and total costs can be compared directly. In building-material procurement it is the basis of every award: it shows which supplier is cheapest per line, where bids have gaps and which bidder, all in, including freight and terms, submitted the most economical offer.

What is a Preisspiegel?

The structure is always the same: rows hold the items of the request or bill of quantities with quantity and unit, columns hold the bidders. Each cell contains the unit price and line total. Below come subtotals, additional costs such as freight, surcharges and discounts, and payment terms. A summary with a bidder ranking completes the comparison.

In German construction the Preisspiegel is used both for subcontractor work and for pure material tenders. For building materials it is especially demanding because every merchant quotes differently: different article numbers, pack sizes and units, freight sometimes included and sometimes charged as a flat rate.

Why the bid comparison decides material procurement

Materials make up a large share of costs on many projects. Awarding on the headline total often means comparing apples with oranges: a bid looks cheap because items are missing, because freight is charged separately or because the pack size forces you to buy extra. A properly built comparison makes these differences visible, and it documents the award decision for management, site leadership and, where needed, the client.

It is also the best negotiating tool. If you know bidder B is 5 % above the best price on rebar, you can negotiate that line specifically instead of asking for a blanket discount.

How to build a bid comparison for a material tender

1. Send a uniform request. The more structured the request, ideally a bill of quantities or GAEB file with fixed item numbers, the easier the answers are to map. See the article on GAEB.
2. Map the lines. Match each bid line to the right request item by item number, article number, EAN or description.
3. Normalise units. Convert prices per kg to per tonne, per pack to per m², per pallet to per piece. Check pack sizes: a supplier who only ships whole packs is effectively billing extra quantity.
4. Mark gaps. Items not quoted stay visible and get a traceable assumption for the total comparison.
5. Rate alternative bids separately. An alternative bid (Nebenangebot), such as a different product the bidder considers equivalent, belongs in its own column. Check it technically first, then price it.
6. Build total cost. Add freight, toll and crane surcharges, small-quantity surcharges, deposits and early-payment discounts as separate lines.
7. Rank and decide. Sort bidders by total cost, then weigh delivery capability, dates and past experience.

Example: bid comparison with three bidders

Tender for an apartment building, all amounts net:

At first glance bidder C looks cheapest: the items it quoted add up to only €27,155.00. But C did not quote the mortar and charges three loads plus toll. Bidder B prices in kg and packs; only after conversion does it become clear that B is more expensive on both main items. Bidder A wins in the end thanks to delivery to site and a 2 % early-payment discount, provided the invoices are paid on time.

If C also submits an alternative bid with EPS instead of XPS, it goes into its own column. Whether EPS is permitted at all for the application (for example perimeter insulation) is for site management to decide before price plays any role.

Common mistakes in bid comparisons

• Awarding on the headline total. Without valuing gaps and additional costs, the least complete bid often wins.
• Not converting units. €/kg and €/t, packs and m² look similar but produce wrong rankings.
• Overlooking pack sizes. Rounded-up packs or pallets are real extra cost.
• Ignoring freight. On small call-offs and remote sites, freight and toll decide the ranking.
• Mixing in alternative bids. A non-equivalent alternative in the main comparison distorts the decision.
• Not following up after the award. If agreed prices are not checked against later invoices, the advantage of the tender is lost again. See the four-way match.

How Streckenheld helps

Streckenheld collects every supplier's bid, via the portal or as PDF, scan or GAEB file, and maps each line to your items by EAN, article number and position. The result is a price matrix with the cheapest price per item; items a supplier did not quote show up as gaps. An AI comparison by category recommends a supplier per category and weighs coverage, payment terms and delivery as well as price. Negotiation mode lets you test price changes before you pick up the phone. The accepted bid becomes the framework contract that future orders and invoices are checked against.

The workflow is described in the guides on comparing offers and quote requests. How to protect the award from purchases outside the contract is covered under maverick buying.