Four technical submissions were received for Package C — Structural Works and evaluated in two stages: document compliance and weighted technical scoring. Of the four, one submission (Alpha Contracting) was fully compliant at Stage 1; two (Meridian Construct, BuildRight LLC) were assessed as conditional pending clarification; and one (Gulf Structures) was determined non-responsive and excluded from technical scoring.

On weighted technical merit, Alpha Contracting achieved the highest score of 88.9, demonstrating a robust construction methodology, a Level 3 programme with a clearly defined critical path, and a fully resourced HSE and quality framework. This report sets out the methodology, the detailed findings for each bidder against each criterion, the supporting document references, and the resulting recommendation.

All scores in this report are traceable to specific pages of each bidder's submission and to the corresponding requirement clauses of the Request for Proposal. The evaluation committee should review the findings and confirm the recommendation prior to award.

The evaluation followed a two-envelope, two-stage process. Stage 1 assessed the responsiveness and completeness of each submission against the mandatory document list defined in RFP parts 3 to 7. Any submission omitting a mandatory document was flagged, with material omissions rendering the bid non-responsive.

Stage 2 applied a weighted technical scoring matrix to the compliant submissions. The criteria and weights were: Method Statement (25%), Construction Programme (20%), Key Personnel (15%), Plant & Equipment (15%), and HSE & Quality (25%). Each criterion was scored out of 100 against defined sub-requirements, with every score referenced to the source page of the submission.

Scores were normalised and combined using the stated weights to produce a single weighted technical score per bidder. Commercial factors were expressly excluded from this technical evaluation and are addressed under separate cover.

Alpha Contracting — Fully compliant. All nine mandatory documents were submitted, the construction programme was provided at Level 3 detail, and no omissions were identified.

Meridian Construct — Conditional. The organisation chart required under part 6.4 was not provided, and the HSE plan lacked a task-specific risk assessment. These are capable of remedy through clarification.

BuildRight LLC — Conditional. The Quality Management Plan required under part 7.2 was absent, and the programme was not submitted to the required Level 3 detail.

Gulf Structures — Non-responsive. The HSE Plan mandated under part 4.3 was absent entirely, and only two of the four required key-personnel CVs were provided. The submission is excluded from technical scoring.

Alpha Contracting's method statement (parts 2 to 4 of its submission) demonstrated a coherent sequence of works, appropriate temporary works provisions, and clear interface management with adjacent packages. The proposed sequencing for the substructure and superstructure was logically staged and consistent with the programme.

The narrative addressed constructability, tolerances, and quality hold points, and provided method-specific risk controls. Minor observations were noted regarding the detailing of the tower-crane strategy, which did not materially affect the score. The criterion was assessed at 92 of 100.

By comparison, Meridian's methodology was adequate but generic in its treatment of temporary works, while BuildRight's relied on subcontractor input not yet confirmed at tender.

Alpha's programme (page 7) was provided to Level 3 with a defined work breakdown structure and a clearly identified critical path through the structural frame. Logic links and dependencies were substantially complete. The resource-loaded view addressed labour but did not fully load plant, and no explicit weather or float contingency was demonstrated.

On the programme sub-checklist — Level 3 detail (20/20), critical path (20/20), logic links (18/20), resource loading (15/20), and float allowance (15/20) — the criterion was assessed at 88 of 100. The absence of a demonstrated float contingency is the principal area for clarification.

The proposed project team (CVs, page 3) met the qualification and experience thresholds for all key roles, with a nominated project manager and structural lead holding comparable regional experience. The organisation chart demonstrated clear lines of authority and adequate supervision ratios. The criterion was assessed at 90 of 100.

Plant and equipment resources (schedule, page 9) were appropriate to the scope and programme, with suitable lifting and access provisions. Availability dates aligned with the programme. The criterion was assessed at 85 of 100.

Alpha's HSE plan (part 3) included a project-specific risk register, method-specific risk assessments, and a competency and training matrix consistent with the requirements of part 4.3. The quality management plan (part 5) defined inspection and test plans, hold and witness points, and non-conformance procedures. The combined criterion was assessed at 87 of 100.

This contrasts materially with Gulf Structures, whose absence of any HSE plan was the primary basis for its exclusion, and with Meridian, whose HSE plan required strengthening of its task-specific risk assessments.

Alpha Contracting leads on every criterion, with the widest margin on HSE & Quality and Method Statement — the two most heavily weighted criteria.

Prior to award, the committee should seek written clarification from Alpha on the plant-loading of the programme and the provision of a float/weather contingency. Meridian and BuildRight, if carried forward, must remedy their Stage 1 omissions — the organisation chart and quality management plan respectively — and confirm Level 3 programmes.

No collusive or abnormal patterns were detected across the technical submissions. All findings in this report are supported by the referenced pages and clauses and are retained in the evaluation audit trail.